Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resource Management
Congressional research reportFeb 27, 2001
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL30867
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Land Management Agencies:
Background on Land and Resource Management
February 27, 2001
Carol Hardy Vincent, Betsy A. Cody, M. Lynne Corn,
Ross W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, and David Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pamela Baldwin
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Federal Land Management Agencies:
Background on Land and Resources Management
Summary
The federal government owns 655 million acres (29%) of the nearly 2.3 billion
acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 628 million acres (96%)
of this land: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all in the
Department of the Interior. The majority of these lands are in the West. They
generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, some of which are shared with states and
localities. The agencies receive funding from annual appropriations laws, and from
trust funds and special accounts (including the Land and Water Conservation Fund).
The lands administered by the four agencies are managed for a variety of
purposes, primarily related to conservation, preservation, and development of natural
resources. Yet, each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities for the lands and
resources it administers. The Forest Service (FS) administers 192 million acres for
multiple use and for sustained yields of various products and services, e.g., timber
harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitats.
Most of the lands are designated national forests, but there are national grasslands and
other lands. National forests are created and modified by acts of Congress.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 264 million acres, and is
responsible for 700 million acres of subsurface mineral resources. BLM also has a
multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of uses and programs,
including energy development, timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, wild horses and
burros, cultural resources, and conservation. Both the BLM and FS have several
authorities to acquire and dispose of lands.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 94 million acres primarily to
conserve and protect animals and plants. The 771 units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System include refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination
units. Units can be created by an act of Congress or executive order, and the FWS
also may acquire lands for migratory bird purposes.
The National Park Service (NPS) manages 78 million acres of federal land (plus
nearly 6 million acres of non-federal land) to conserve and interpret lands and
resources and make them available for public use. Activities which harvest or remove
resources generally are prohibited. The National Park System has diverse units
ranging from historical structures to cultural and natural areas. Units are created by
an act of Congress, but the President may proclaim national monuments.
There also are three special management systems that include lands from more
than one agency. The National Wilderness Preservation System consists of 104
million acres of protected wilderness areas designated by Congress. The National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System contains 11,292 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational
rivers, primarily designated by Congress and managed to preserve their free-flowing
condition. The National Trails System contains four classes of trails managed to
provide recreation and access to outdoor areas and historic resources.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Scope and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Historical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal Lands Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Revenues from Activities on Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Agency Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Annual Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Trust Funds and Special Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Compensation to State and Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Revenue-Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Payments In Lieu of Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Acquisition Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Disposal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Rangelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Energy and Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Wildlife and Fisheries, Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . 31
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Land and Mineral Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Other Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Acquisition Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Disposal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Withdrawals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
The National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Organization and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Acquisition Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Disposal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Centennial Observation and System Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Organization and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Designation and Acquisition Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Disposal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Special Systems on Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The National Wilderness Preservation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Organization and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Organization and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
National Trails System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Organization and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
National Scenic Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
National Historic Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
National Recreation Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Connecting and Side Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Major Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
CRS Reports and Committee Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix 1: Major Acronyms Used in Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix 2: Definition of Selected Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
List of Figures
Figure 1. Agency Jurisdiction Over Federally Owned Land in the United States
......................................................... 4
Figure 2. PILT Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 3. Number of Units in the National Wildlife Refuge System from Fiscal
Years 1980 to 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 4. Acreage in the National Wildlife Refuge System from Fiscal Years
1980 to 1999
(in millions of acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
List of Tables
Table 1. Federally Owned Land by State, as of September 30, 1998 . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Acreage Managed by Federal Agencies, by State, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Gross Federal Government Revenues from
Sale and Use of Agency Land and Resources for FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4. The National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 5. Federally Designated Wilderness Acreage,
by State and Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 6. Mileage of Rivers Classified as Wild, Scenic, and Recreational, by State,
2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Federal Land Management Agencies:
Background on Land and Resources
Management
Introduction 1
Scope and Organization
This report provides an overview of how federal lands and resources are
managed, the agencies that manage the lands, the authorities under which these lands
are managed, and some of the issues associated with federal land management. The
report is divided into nine chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides a brief
historical review and general background on the federal lands. Chapter 2, Federal
Lands Financing, describes: revenues derived from activities on federal lands; the
appropriation processes and the trust funds and special accounts that fund these
agencies; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and programs that compensate
state and local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. Chapters 3
through 6 relate each of the agencies’ history; organizational structure; management
responsibilities; procedures for land acquisition, disposal, and designation, where
relevant; current issues; and statutory authorities. Chapters 7 through 9 provide
essentially the same information for the three major protection systems that are
administered by more than one agency and hence cross agency jurisdictions: the
National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System, and the National Trails System. Relevant CRS reports are listed following
each chapter. The report concludes with an appendix of acronyms used in the text,
and another defining selected terms used in the report.
Information on appropriations for land management agencies is contained in CRS
Report RL30506, Appropriations for FY2001: Interior and Related Agencies. For
other reports on related issues, see the CRS web page at [http://www.crs.gov/].
Background
The federal government owns and manages approximately 655 million acres of
land in the United States — 29% of the total land base of 2.3 billion acres.2 Table 1
(page 4) identifies the portion of federal land that is located in each state and the
District of Columbia (column 3). Such figures range from 9,122 acres of federal land
1
This section was prepared by Carol Hardy Vincent.
2
U.S. General Services Administration. Summary Report of Real Property Owned by the
United States Throughout the World as of September 30, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., July 1999, p. 29.
CRS-2
in DC to 248,286,863 federal acres in Alaska. Further, while a dozen states contain
less than ½ million acres of federal land, another dozen have more than 10 million
federal acres within their borders. Table 1 also identifies the total size of each state
(column 2), and the percentage of land in each state that is federally owned (column
4). These percentages point to significant variation in the size of the federal presence
within states. Specifically, the figures range from 0.4% of New York land that is
federally owned to 83.1% of land in Nevada that is federally owned. All 12 states
where the federal government owns at least 26% of the land are located in the West
(including Alaska).
Four agencies administer about 628 million acres (96%) of the total 655 million
acres of federal land.3 These four agencies are the Forest Service in the Department
of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the National Park Service, all in the Department of the Interior.4
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has jurisdiction over approximately
264 million acres (40.3%) of the federal total. The Forest Service (FS) has
jurisdiction over approximately 192 million acres (29.3%) of the total federal acreage.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administers approximately 94 million acres
(14.3%), and the National Park Service (NPS) administers about 78 million acres of
federal land (11.9%) (plus nearly 6 million acres of non-federal land, for a total of
nearly 84 million federal and nonfederal acres). Figure 1shows the percent of land
managed by each agency and table 2 (page 6) displays the acreage for each of these
four agencies in each state and territory.
The lands administered by these four agencies are managed for a variety of
purposes, primarily relating to the conservation, preservation, and development of
various natural resources. Although there are some similarities among the agencies,
each agency has a distinct mission and special responsibilities for the lands under its
jurisdiction. The majority of the 655 million acres of federal lands are in the West,
3
In this report, the term “federal land” refers to any land owned or managed by the federal
government, regardless of its mode of acquisition or managing agency. “Public domain land”
is used when the historical distinction regarding mode of land acquisition is relevant, i.e.,
when a law specifically applies to those lands that originally were ceded by the original states
or obtained from foreign sovereigns (including Indian tribes) as opposed to being acquired
from individuals or states. “Public land” refers to lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management.
4
Several other agencies manage some of the remaining 27 million acres of federal land. The
Department of Defense (DoD), including the Army Corps of Engineers, is the fifth largest
federal land manager. Because land management is not DoD’s primary mission, these lands
are not discussed in this report. Nonetheless, military lands are often noteworthy for their
size, which can provide important open space, and for their historic, cultural, and biological
resources. Moreover, because access is sometimes severely restricted, these lands may
contain ecological resources in nearly pristine condition. In addition, the General Services
Administration owns or rents lands and buildings to house federal agencies and also
administers the excess/surplus system of property disposal.
CRS-3
Table 1. Federally Owned Land by State, as of September 30, 1998
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Acreage in
State
32,678,400
365,481,600
72,688,000
33,599,360
100,206,720
66,485,760
3,135,360
1,265,920
39,040
34,721,280
37,295,360
4,105,600
52,933,120
35,795,200
23,158,400
35,860,480
52,510,720
25,512,320
28,867,840
19,847,680
6,319,360
5,034,880
36,492,160
51,205,760
30,222,720
44,248,320
93,271,040
49,031,680
70,264,320
5,768,960
4,813,440
77,766,400
30,680,960
31,402,880
44,452,480
26,222,080
44,087,680
61,598,720
28,804,480
677,120
19,374,080
48,881,920
26,727,680
168,217,600
52,696,960
5,936,640
25,496,320
42,693,760
15,410,560
35,011,200
62,343,040
Acreage of Federally
Owned Land in State
1,109,546
248,286,863
33,130,067
3,259,660
45,027,292
24,223,955
15,112
26,710
9,122
2,889,080
2,080,239
605,362
33,073,325
627,748
510,228
234,388
664,987
1,235,647
1,284,689
192,070
199,417
78,216
4,087,471
4,437,324
1,774,075
2,137,473
26,136,138
738,183
58,375,263
758,816
165,773
26,594,276
122,070
2,508,402
1,849,709
396,905
1,280,559
32,431,303
677,831
3,880
1,188,350
2,753,704
1,643,374
2,804,397
34,005,979
376,249
2,299,111
12,186,369
1,177,927
1,957,425
31,087,680
% of Land Federally
Owned in State
3.4
67.9
45.6
10.2
44.9
36.4
0.5
2.1
23.4
8.3
5.6
14.7
62.5
1.8
2.2
0.7
1.3
4.8
4.5
1.0
3.2
1.6
11.2
8.7
5.9
4.8
28.0
1.5
83.1
13.2
3.4
34.2
0.4
8.0
4.2
1.5
2.9
52.6
2.4
0.6
6.1
5.6
6.1
1.7
64.5
6.3
9.0
28.5
7.6
5.6
49.9
2,271,343,360
654,885,389
28.8
Total
More recent figures (from the Summary Report for September 30, 1999) are not used because of discrepancies
between these figures and figures reported by individual agencies.
Source: Except where noted, figures are taken from: U.S. General Services Administration. Summary Report
of Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World as of September 30, 1998. Washington,
DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., July 1999. p. 29. Note that GSA obtained the state acreage figures (column two)
from the U.S. Census of Population. The data do not include trust properties.
CRS-4
Figure 1. Agency Jurisdiction Over Federally Owned Land in the
United States
Note: The National Park Service percentage reflects only federal land within the Natinal Park System. Also,
percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.
a result of early treaties and land settlement laws and patterns. Management of these
lands is often controversial, especially in states where the federal government is a
predominant or majority landholder and where competing and often conflicting uses
of the lands are at issue.
Historical Review
The nation’s lands and resources have been important in American history,
adding to the strength and stature of the federal government, serving as an attraction
and opportunity for settlement and economic development, and providing a source
of revenue for schools, transportation, national defense, and other national, state, and
local needs.
The formation of our current federal government was particularly influenced by
the struggle for control over what were known as the “Western” lands — the lands
between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River claimed by the original
colonies. Prototypical land laws enacted by the Continental Congress, such as the
Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, established the federal
system of rectangular land surveying for disposal and set up a system for developing
territorial governments leading to statehood. During operation of the Articles of
Confederation, the states which then owned the Western lands were reluctant to cede
them to the developing new government, but eventually acquiesced. This, together
with granting constitutional powers to the new federal government, including the
authority to regulate federal property and to create new states, played a crucial role
in transforming the weak central government under the Articles of Confederation into
a stronger, centralized federal government under our Constitution.
CRS-5
The new Congress, which first met in 1789, enacted land statutes similar to those
enacted by the Continental Congress. Subsequent federal land laws reflected two
visions: reserving some federal lands (such as for national forests and national parks)
and selling or otherwise disposing of other lands to raise money or to encourage
transportation, development, and settlement. From the earliest days, these policy
clashes took on East/West overtones, with easterners more likely to view the lands
as national public property, and Westerners more likely to view the lands as necessary
for local use and development. Most agreed, however, on measures that promoted
settlement of the lands in order to pay soldiers and pay national debt, and to
strengthen the nation. This settlement trend accelerated after the Louisiana Purchase
in 1803, the Oregon Compromise with England in 1846, and cession of lands by treaty
after the Mexican war in 1848.5
During the mid- to late-1800s, Congress passed numerous laws that encouraged
and accelerated the settlement of the West by disposing of federal lands. Examples
include the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Desert Lands Entry Act of 1877.
Approximately 816 million acres of the public domain lands were transferred to
private ownership between 1781 and 1999. Another 328 million acres were granted
to the states generally, and an additional 127.5 million were granted in Alaska under
state and native selection laws.6 Most transfers to private ownership (97%) occurred
before 1940; homestead entries, for example, peaked in 1910 at 18.3 million acres,
but dropped below 200,000 acres annually after 1935, until being totally eliminated
in 1986.7
Certain other federal laws were “catch up” laws designed to legitimize certain
uses that already were occurring on the federal lands. These laws typically
acknowledged local variations and customs. For example, the General Mining Law
of 1872 recognized mineral claims on the public domain lands in accordance with
local laws and customs, and provided for the conveyance of title to such lands. In
5
These major land acquisitions gave rise to a distinction in the laws between “public domain
lands,” which essentially are those ceded by the original states or obtained from a foreign
sovereign (via purchase, treaty, or other means), and “acquired lands,” which are those
obtained from a state or individual by exchange, purchase, or gift. (Nearly 590 million acres,
90% of all federal lands, are public domain lands, while the other 65 million acres, 10% of
federal lands, are acquired lands.) Many laws were passed that related only to the vast new
public domain lands. Even though the distinction has lost most of its underlying significance
today, different laws may still apply depending on the original nature of the lands involved.
The lessening of the historical significance of land designations was recognized in the Federal
Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 which defines “public lands” as those managed by
BLM, regardless of whether they were derived from the public domain or were acquired.
6
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of land Management. Public Land Statistics, 1999.
Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, March, 2000. Table 1-2.
7
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States,
Colonial Times to 1970. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1976. H. Doc. No.
93-78 (93rd Congress, 1st Session). pp.428-429.
FLPMA, enacted in 1976, repealed the Homestead Laws; however, homesteading was
allowed to continue in Alaska for 10 years.
CRS-6
addition, early land disposal laws allowed states to determine the rights of settlers to
use and control water. The courts later determined, however, that the federal
government could also reserve or create federal water rights for its own properties
and purposes.
Although some earlier laws had protected some lands and resources, such as
timber needed for military use, other laws in the late 1800s reflected the growing
concern that rapid development threatened some of the scenic treasures of the nation,
as well as resources that would be needed for future use. A preservation and
conservation movement evolved to ensure that certain lands and resources were left
untouched or reserved for future use. For example, Yellowstone National Park was
established in 1872 to preserve its resources in a natural condition, and to dedicate
recreation opportunities for the public. It was the world’s first national park, and like
the other early parks, Yellowstone was protected by the U.S. Army– primarily from
poachers of wildlife or timber.8 In 1891, concern over the effects of timber harvests
on water supplies led to the creation of forest reserves (renamed national forests in
1907).
The creation of national parks and forest reserves laid the foundation for the
current development of federal agencies with primary purposes of managing natural
resources on federal lands. For example, in 1905, responsibility for management of
the forest reserves was joined with forestry research and assistance in a new Forest
Service within the Department of Agriculture. The National Park Service was created
in 1916 to manage the growing number of parks established by Congress and
monuments proclaimed by the President. The first national wildlife refuge was
proclaimed in 1903, although it was not until 1966 that the refuges were coalesced
into the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Grazing Service (Department of the
Interior, first known as the Grazing Division) was established in 1934 to administer
grazing on public rangelands. It was combined with the General Land Office in 1946
to form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
In addition to the conservation laws and activities noted above, emphasis shifted
during the 20th Century from the disposal and conveyance of title to private citizens
to the retention and management of the remaining federal lands. Some laws provided
for sharing revenues from various uses of the federal lands with the states containing
the lands. Examples include the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which provides for the
leased development of certain federal minerals, and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934,
which provides for permitted private livestock grazing on public lands.
During debates on the Taylor Grazing Act, some Western Members of Congress
acknowledged the poor prospects for relinquishing federal lands to the states, but
8
“Yo-Semite” was established by an Act of Congress in 1864, to protect Yosemite Valley
from development, and was transferred to the State of California to administer. In 1890,
surrounding lands were designated as Yosemite National Park, and in 1905, Yosemite Valley
was returned to federal jurisdiction and incorporated into the park.
CRS-7
Table 2. Acreage Managed by Federal Agencies, by State, 1999
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Territories
Forest
Service
665,026
21,998,614
11,254,994
2,586,074
20,697,511
14,509,188
24
0
0
1,152,824
865,078
1
20,458,276
292,726
196,488
0
108,175
693,746
604,210
53,040
0
0
2,857,659
2,837,647
1,158,967
1,492,915
16,893,496
352,092
5,832,769
728,151
0
9,326,785
16,175
1,244,295
1,105,770
229,838
397,131
15,657,819
513,359
0
613,171
2,012,426
634,523
755,104
8,178,602
376,251
1,660,428
9,214,449
1,032,736
1,522,524
9,237,617
27,978
National
Park Service
16,873
51,085,035
2,679,020
101,456
7,445,638
596,794
6,410
0
6,945
2,443,323
40,335
237,629
99,788
12
10,871
1,663
698
93,941
10,731
75,241
43,362
33,744
632,105
142,400
107,866
63,437
1,221,473
5,863
777,017
15,385
38,306
376,312
36,763
393,095
71,650
19,968
10,200
197,301
50,028
5
27,152
263,629
355,354
1,183,095
2,097,824
21,407
333,422
1,932,775
52,739
73,361
2,393,210
14,846
Fish and
Wildlife Service
57,866
76,981,476
1,718,434
345,745
446,382
83,785
775
26,721
0
976,080
479,241
294,773
89,332
138,351
12,035
108,865
58,538
7,487
510,615
54,875
44,070
14,179
117,574
537,246
223,634
68,694
1,279,632
174,331
2,384,955
5,911
68,717
385,027
28,424
421,080
1,433,139
8,353
167,682
597,441
10,052
1,707
160,490
1,121,113
114,517
496,916
111,755
32,868
129,721
199,262
6,004
235,160
97,332
559,938
Bureau of Land
Management
110,923
86,526,170
14,258,209
291,126
14,565,597
8,364,945
0
0
0
25,277
0
0
11,861,600
225
0
378
0
0
309,611
0
0
0
74,854
151,128
57,171
2,161
8,012,351
6,580
47,886,535
0
0
13,378,976
0
0
59,717
0
2,126
16,221,167
0
0
0
279,678
0
0
22,814,389
0
0
386,334
0
160,106
18,367,411
0
Total
192,046,672
77,937,494
93,628,302
264,174,745
State
Sources: For FS: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Areas of the National Forest
System, as of September 1999. Data reflect land managed by the FS that is within the National
CRS-8
Forest System, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization
projects, experimental areas, and other land areas, water areas, and interests in lands.
For NPS: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Park Service, Land Resources Division,
National Park Service, Listing of Acreage by State, as of 09/30/1999, unpublished document. The
data consist of all federal lands managed by the NPS.
For FWS: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Report of Lands Under Control
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as of September 30, 1999. They comprise all land managed
by the FWS, whether the agency has sole, primary, or secondary jurisdiction, and include acres under
agreements, easements, and leases.
For BLM: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics,
1999, and are current as of September 30, 1999. The data consist of lands managed exclusively by
BLM, including certain types of surveyed and unsurveyed public and ceded Indian lands, as well as
reserved lands.
language included in the Act left this question open. It was not until the passage of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976 that Congress
expressly declared that the remaining public domain lands generally would remain in
federal ownership.9 This declaration of policy was a significant factor in what became
known as the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” an effort that started in the late 1970s to take
state or local control of federal land and management decisions. To date, judicial
challenges and legislative and executive attempts to make significant changes to
federal ownership have proven unsuccessful. Since current authorities for disposing
of federal lands are unique to each agency, they, as well as existing authorities for land
acquisition, are described in subsequent chapters of this report.
Issues
Since the cession to the federal government of the “Western” lands of several of
the original thirteen colonies, many issues and conflicts have recurred. Ownership
continues to be debated, with some advocating increased disposal of federal lands to
state or private ownership, and others supporting retention of federal lands by the
federal government. Still others promote acquisition by the federal government of
additional land, including through an increased, and more stable, funding source. A
related issue is determining the optimal division of resources between federal
acquisition of new lands and resources and maintenance of existing federal lands and
facilities.
Another focus is whether federal lands should be managed primarily to produce
national benefits or benefits primarily for the localities and states in which the lands
are located. Who decides these issues, and how the decisions are made, also are at
issue. Some would like to see more local control of land and a reduced federal role,
while others seek to maintain or enhance the federal role in land management as the
best way to represent the interests of all citizens.
9
FLPMA also established a comprehensive system of management for the remainder of the
Western public lands, and a definitive mission and policy statement for the BLM.
CRS-9
The extent to which federal lands should be preserved, opened to recreation, and
made available for development has been controversial. Significant differences of
opinion exist on the amount of traditional commercial development that should be
allowed, particularly involving grazing, mining, and timber cutting. Whether and
where to restrict recreation, either generally or such uses as motorized vehicles offroad, also is a focus of debate. How much land to accord enhanced protection, what
type of protection to accord, and who should protect federal lands are continuing
questions.
CRS Reports and Committee Prints
CRS Report RS20002, Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer,
Coordinated by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30126, Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report 95-1117, The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management: History
and Analysis of Merger Proposals, by Ross W. Gorte and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL30069, Natural Resource Issues in the 106th Congress, by Natural
Resources and Earth Sciences Section, Resource, Science, and Industry
Division.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Multiple
Use and Sustained Yield: Changing Philosophies for Federal Land
Management? The Proceedings and Summary of a Workshop Convened on
March 5-6, 1992. Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Dec. 1992. Committee Print No. 11.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Outdoor Recreation: A
Reader for Congress. Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., June 1998. Committee Print S.Prt.
105-53.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ecosystem Management:
Status and Potential. Summary of a Workshop Convened by the Congressional
Research Service, March 24-25, 1994. Prepared by the Congressional Research
Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Dec. 1994. Committee Print
S.Prt. 103-98.
CRS-10
Federal Lands Financing 10
Financial issues are a persistent concern for all federal agencies, including the
federal land management agencies. However, the sale or lease of the lands and
resources being managed provides these agencies with an opportunity to recover
some of their operations and capital costs. This section summarizes the revenues of
the four land management agencies and provides a brief overview of annual
appropriations and of the trust funds and special accounts funded from revenues. It
concludes with a discussion of the programs that compensate state and local
governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands.
Revenues from Activities on Federal Lands
The federal land management agencies are among the relatively few federal
agencies that generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury. However, none of these four
agencies consistently collects more money than it expends. Revenues are derived from
the use or sale of lands and resources. Major revenue sources include the selling of
timber, fees for grazing livestock, leasing energy and mineral resources, and collecting
fees for recreation uses. The FY1999 revenues collected by these four agencies,
excluding deposits to trust funds and special accounts, are shown in table 3 (page 12).
Agency Appropriations
Annual Appropriations. Funding for all four of the federal land management
agencies is contained in the annual Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The FS is a USDA agency, but has been included in the Interior
bill as a “related agency” since 1955. It receives the largest appropriation of any
agency in the Interior bill, with funding of $4.4 billion (including additional fire
funding) in the Interior Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-291). The NPS and
BLM receive the next largest appropriations of the federal land management agencies,
each with FY2001 funding having risen to $2.15 billion (including additional fire funds
for the BLM). The FWS has the lowest funding of the land management agencies,
with FY2001 appropriations at $1.2 billion.
Trust Funds and Special Accounts. The federal land management
agencies also have a variety of trust funds and special accounts. Some require annual
appropriations; most of these are small, but the Land and Water Conservation Fund
is relatively large and controversial, and is discussed separately below.
A number of the trust funds and special accounts are permanently appropriated.
This means that the agencies can spend the money in the accounts without annual
appropriations by Congress. Many of these accounts (15) were established to
compensate state and local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands;
these accounts will be discussed separately below.
10
This section was prepared by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS-11
The FWS has the largest annual funding in permanently appropriated trust funds
and special accounts. The two largest accounts, with FY2000 budget authority of
$533 million, are: the Sport Fish Restoration Trust Fund ($306 million), established
by the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (also known as the Dingell-Johnson
Act and the Wallop-Breaux Act); and the Wildlife Restoration Special Account ($228
million), established by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (also known as the
Pittman-Robertson Act). These accounts are largely funded by excise taxes on
equipment related to fishing and hunting, respectively, and the money is distributed
to the states mostly to fund fish and wildlife restoration activities by state agencies.
The FWS has several other permanently appropriated funds, with FY2000 budget
authority of $53 million. Most of this is the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund ($42
million), which uses the revenues from selling duck stamps to hunters, refuge visitors,
and others to acquire lands for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The FS has the next largest annual funding in permanently appropriated trust
funds and special accounts. The FS has 14 accounts with FY2000 budget authority
of $433 million.11 Six of the 7 largest (accounting for 87% of total FS permanent
appropriations) are directly or substantially related to timber sales, including: the
Salvage Sale Fund ($128 million), the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund ($116 million),
other cooperative deposits ($50 million), the Reforestation Trust Fund ($30 million),
National Forest roads and trails ($26 million),12 and brush disposal ($26 million).
The NPS also has numerous permanently-appropriated special accounts and trust
funds, with FY2000 budget authority of $223 million. Under these accounts, the NPS
now retains 100% of its recreation and admission fees. Two funds are unique to the
NPS: the concessions improvement account ($20 million), and the Park concessions
franchise fees ($15 million). Two other funds are common to all four land
management agencies, but are significantly larger for the NPS. One is the fund for
maintaining employee quarters ($15 million for the NPS, less than $10 million total
for the other 3 agencies) paid by rent from employees. Another is contributions and
donations from interested individuals and groups ($15 million for the NPS; less than
$5 million total for the other 3 agencies).
The BLM also has numerous permanently-appropriated trust funds and special
accounts, but the accounts are generally much smaller than for the other federal land
management agencies; total FY2000 budget authority was $40 million. The largest
account — Southern Nevada public land sales — had FY2000 budget authority of
$13 million.
Finally, all 4 agencies were authorized to participate in the recreational fee
demonstration project, to test the feasibility and public acceptability of user fees to
supplement or supplant appropriations for operations and maintenance (P.L. 104-134,
11
This excludes the Working Capital Fund, an intergovernmental account that maintains longlived assets (e.g., vehicles and signs) and effectively charges depreciation to the other accounts
or agencies (e.g., the timber or fire-fighting programs) as those assets are used. FY2000
budget authority for this Fund was $174 million.
12
Since FY1998, this account has been available for forest health improvement activities, as
well as for building and repairing roads and trails.
CRS-12
§315). This project authorized new or increased entrance fees at federal recreation
sites from FY1996 through FY1998; it has been extended multiple times, and now is
authorized for fee collections through FY2002 (expenditures can continue through
FY2005). FY2000 budget authority is $144 million for the NPS, $25 million for the
FS, $6 million for the BLM, and $4 million for the FWS.
Table 3. Gross Federal Government Revenues from
Sale and Use of Agency Land and Resources for FY1999
(Excluding Deposits to Permanently Appropriated Accounts)
(in thousands of dollars)
Resource
BLM
FWS
NPS
FS
Mineral leases and
permits
$49,933a
$2,433
$0
$135,721b
Sales of timber and other
forest products
$65,506
$2,985
$10
$159,119
Grazing leases, licenses,
and permits
$14,023
$952
——c
$6,894
Recreation, admission,
and user fees
$6,688
$1,082
$0d
$48,968
Other
$34,475
$890
$53
$9,858
Total
$170,625
$8,342
$63
$360,560
Sources: For BLM: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics
1999, v. 184, table 3-26, at [http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls99/99pl3-26.pdf].
For FWS: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan, FY
2001: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, p. 438.
For NPS: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan, FY
2001: National Park Service, p. NPS-15.
For FS: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Forest Service, Fiscal Year
1999, draft.
a
Includes mining claim and holding fees, and non-operating revenues.
Includes collections for power licenses and estimated $120.9 million collected by Departments of
the Interior and Energy for mineral leases and power licenses.
c
Included with revenues for sales of timber and forest products.
d
The NPS is now authorized, through its several permanently appropriated accounts, to retain all
such fees in permanently appropriated accounts, amounting to $233 million in FY2000.
b
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF is a special account
created in 1964 to provide funds for federal land acquisition and for state recreation
programs. It is credited with revenues from federal recreation user fees, the federal
motorboat fuel tax, and surplus property sales; these are supplemented with revenues
from federal offshore oil and gas leases, up to the authorized level of $900 million
annually.
CRS-13
LWCF does not operate the way a “true trust fund” would in the private sector.
The Fund is credited with deposits from specified sources, but Congress must enact
appropriations annually for the agencies to spend money from the Fund. Thus,
“deposits” to LWCF are only an authorization of expenditures that accumulates if the
money is not appropriated. Through FY2000, the authorized, accumulated,
unappropriated balance in LWCF is nearly $12 billion. It must be recognized,
however, that because these funds actually are used elsewhere in the Federal budget,
the LWCF balances are only an accounting entry indicating the total amount that
Congress has authorized but not appropriated.
The 106th Congress considered several versions of legislation, typically referred
to as CARA (Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701 and S. 25), that would
have fully funded the LWCF for the next 15 fiscal years. CARA legislation passed the
House and was reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but
was not enacted. In the House-passed version, $450 million would have been
provided annually for federal land acquisition from the proposed CARA Fund, subject
to the annual appropriations process. This bill did not repeal the existing LWCF
program, so an additional $900 million, subject to annual appropriations, also would
have been available. The version reported by the Senate Committee was similar,
except that none of the other programs funded under the bill using permanent
appropriations could have received those funds until Congress had approved funding
for the federal portion of the LWCF, and the old LWCF program would have been
replaced by CARA rather than being in addition to it.
The Clinton Administration successfully pursued another avenue to increase
funding for federal LWCF land acquisition, through the annual appropriations process
in FY2000 and FY2001, in its Lands Legacy Initiative. In the year preceding the
initiative, FY1999, the federal agencies had been appropriated a total of $328.1
million for land acquisition. In FY2000, the appropriation was increased to $425
million (including $178.6 in the lands legacy title), and to $494 million in
FY2001(including $179 million in the lands legacy title). This is the highest funding
level for federal land acquisition since FY1980.
Compensation to State and Local Governments
Because federal property is exempt from state and local taxation, Congress has
enacted a variety of mechanisms to compensate state and local governments for tax
revenues that would have been collected if the lands were privately owned. Many of
the mechanisms provide for sharing revenues from federal lands with state and/or
local governments; only the NPS has no such compensation system. The Payments
In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program provides additional revenues.
Revenue-Sharing. The amount and percentage of federal revenues that are
shared with state and/or local governments depends upon the history of the land and
the type of activities generating the revenues. Congress created the simplest system
for revenue-sharing for FS lands. Since 1908, the agency has returned 25% of its
gross revenues to the states for use on roads and schools in the counties where the
national forests are located. The states determine which road and school programs
are to be funded, and how much goes to each program, but the amount allocated to
each county is determined by the FS and the states cannot retain any of the funds. In
CRS-14
addition, for national forests which contain northern spotted owl habitat (and in which
timber sales consequently were reduced), payments for FY1994-FY2003 have been
set at a fixed percentage of historic payments, unless the revenue-sharing payments
would be higher; these “owl” payments can be made “out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated.”13 For the national grasslands (also
administered by the FS), 25% of net revenues go directly to the counties, without any
state intervention or control. Payments are permanently appropriated from FS
revenues (except for the owl payments), with FY2000 budget authority of $235
million.
Because of concerns over declining timber revenues in many areas, and the
approaching end of the owl payments program, the 106th Congress debated bills to
modify the FS revenue-sharing program. Eventually, in P.L. 106-393, Congress
enacted a 6-year program allowing counties to supplant the 25% payment with the
average of the three highest payments to the state between 1986 and 1999, although
15-20% of these 3-high payments must be spent on certain county programs or on
projects on federal lands recommended by a local advisory committee or chosen by
the FS.
For BLM lands and revenues, the revenue-sharing system is more complicated.
The share going to state and local entities ranges from 0 to 90% of gross program
revenues, as specified in individual statutes. For example, states and counties receive
12.5% of revenues from grazing within grazing districts (under §3 of the Taylor
Grazing Act of 1934) and 50% of revenues from grazing outside grazing districts
(under §15 of the Taylor Grazing Act). Another example is timber sale revenues.
The states and counties receive 4% of timber revenues from most BLM lands.
However, the counties receive up to 75% from the heavily timbered O&C grant lands
in Western Oregon.14 Counties with the Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands
(adjoining and usually identified with the O&C lands) similarly receive up to 75%, but
actual payments are limited by county tax assessments. Because the O&C lands were
included in the owl payments program, they were also included in P.L. 106-393
creating a 6-year program of payments at the average of the three highest between
1986 and 1999, with 15-20% spent on specific programs or projects. These examples
demonstrate the complexity of the legal direction to share BLM revenues with state
and local governments. The BLM revenue-sharing payments are permanently
appropriated, with 9 separate payment accounts and FY2000 budget authority of $69
million (of which $62 million is for the O&C lands).
Finally, the FWS has a revenue-sharing program, but payments depend on the
history of the land. For refuges reserved from the public domain, the payments are
based on 25% of net revenues (in contrast to 25% of gross revenues from FS lands).
For refuges which have been created on lands acquired from other landowners,
13
This program, enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA ‘93; P.L.
103-66) began at 85% of the average FY1986-FY1990 payments in FY1994 and declines by
3 percentage points annually (to 58% in FY2003).
14
A third of the county payment (i.e., 25% of the total) is returned to the General Treasury to
cover appropriations for access roads and reforestation; thus, the counties actually receive
50% of the revenues.
CRS-15
payments are based on the greatest of: 25% of net revenues; 0.75% of fair market
value of the land; or $0.75 per acre. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund is
permanently appropriated for making these payments, but the net revenues have been
insufficient to make the authorized payments. Although payments have been
supplemented with annual appropriations, actual payments have consistently been less
than authorized payments.
Payments In Lieu of Taxes. The most comprehensive federal program for
compensating local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands was
created in the 1976 Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act (30 U.S.C. §6901-6907).
PILT payments are made in addition to any revenue-sharing payments, although the
payments may be limited by such revenue-sharing payments, as discussed below.
Federal lands encompassed by this county-compensation program include lands in the
National Forest System, in the National Park System, and those administered by the
BLM, plus some of the National Wildlife Refuge System (those lands reserved from
the public domain), and a few other categories of federal lands.
In 1994, Congress amended the PILT Act to more than double the authorized
payments over 5 years, to adjust for inflation between 1976 and 1994, and to build in
adjustments for future inflation. By 2000, counties were eligible to receive the
greater of the amounts determined by the following two formulas:
(1) The lesser of: (a) the county’s eligible acres times $0.25 per acre; or (b) the
county’s payment ceiling (determined by county population level).
(2) The lesser of: (a) the county’s eligible acres times $1.87 per acre minus the
previous year’s total revenue-sharing payments; or (b) the county’s payment
ceiling minus the previous year’s total revenue-sharing payments.
In contrast to most of the revenue-sharing programs, PILT requires annual
appropriations from Congress. Those appropriations had generally been sufficient to
compensate the counties at the authorized level prior to the 1994 amendments. Those
amendments, however, only raised the authorization. Critics expressed their concern
that this would raise expectations, but that Congress would not increase the
appropriations to fulfill the greater authorized payments. Subsequent appropriations
have been substantially below the increased authorization. Figure 2 compares the
level of authorization and appropriation for each year from FY1989 through FY2001.
Issues
Several financing themes are perennial issues for Congress, involving fees
charged (or not charged) and how these revenues relate to agency activities. One
issue has been the question of whether prices set administratively (rather than by
markets) subsidize some resource users. This issue typically has focused on fees for
private livestock grazing on federal lands. In other instances, the issue is that no fees
currently are charged at all, e.g., hardrock (locatable) minerals that are currently
available for private development under a claims system without royalty payments.
Another issue is whether “below-cost” timber sales should continue if the government
is losing money on them. In addition, whether to permanently authorize the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has been a continuing concern.
CRS-16
Figure 2. PILT Payments
Authorization for a given year depends on receipts from previous years from other agencies.
Consequently, no authorization level can be determined for FY2001.
Sources: The authorization levels were calculated by the BLM based on the formula in statute, while
the appropriation levels were taken from laws appropriating funds for the Department of the Interior.
Federal land acquisition also has been controversial. Bills to alter the LWCF and
add permanent federal land acquisition funding (as well as funding for other activities)
from offshore oil and gas leasing revenues were discussed in the 106th Congress, but
were not enacted.15 Members of Congress or the Bush Administration may pursue
this issue in the 107th Congress.
Another persistent issue is the annual appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies (including the FS). The budget requests for the agencies
can be controversial, and are typically modified by Congress. In addition, added
environmental and resource “riders” (legislative provisions contained in the bill) are
often the most controversial parts of the bill.
Major Statutes
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2001
(the most recent in the annual series of such acts): Act of Oct. 11, 2000; P.L.
106-291.
Forest Service Revenue-Sharing Act: Act of May 23, 1908; ch. 192, 35 Stat. 251.
16 U.S.C. 500.
15
Through the appropriations process, Congress increased funding for land acquisition that
was sought as part of President Clinton’s Lands Legacy Initiative.
CRS-17
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965: Act of Sept. 3, 1964; P.L. 88-578;
78 Stat. 897. 16 U.S.C. §460l.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act: Act of Oct. 20, 1976; P.L. 94-565, 90 Stat. 2662.
31 U.S.C. §6901-6907.
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: Act of Oct.
19, 2000; P.L. 106-393.
CRS Reports and Committee Prints
CRS Report RL30506, Appropriations for FY2001: Interior and Related Agencies,
coordinated by Alfred R. Greenwood.
CRS Report RL30444, Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL30335, Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report 98-794, Federal Recreational Fees: Demonstration Program, by
Rosemary Mazaika.
CRS Report 98-980, Federal Sales of Natural Resources: Allocation and Pricing
Mechanisms, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report 90-192, Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL30480, Forest Service Revenue-Sharing: Legislative Issues, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report 97-792, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues,
by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report IB10015, Managing Growth and Related Issues in the 107th Congress:
Issue Brief, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report 98-574, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by M.
Lynne Corn.
CRS-18
The National Forest System 16
The National Forest System (NFS) is administered by the Forest Service (FS)
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The NFS is comprised of national forests,
national grasslands, and various other designations. Although NFS lands are
concentrated in the West (87%), the FS administers more federal land in the East than
all other federal agencies combined. NFS lands are administered for sustained yields
of multiple uses, including outdoor recreation (camping, hiking, hunting, sightseeing,
etc.), livestock grazing, timber harvesting, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife
habitats.
Background
In 1891, Congress granted the President the authority (now repealed) to establish
forest reserves from the public domain. Six years later, in 1897, Congress stated that
the forest reserves were:
to improve and protect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of
securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply
of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.
Initially, the reserves were administered by the Division of Forestry in the
General Land Office of the Department of the Interior. In 1905, this division was
combined with the USDA Bureau of Forestry, renamed the Forest Service, and the
administration of the 56 million acres of forest reserves (later renamed “national
forests”) was transferred to the new agency within the Department of Agriculture.
NFS management is one of the three principal FS programs.17
In 1906 and 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt more than doubled the acreage
of the forest reserves. As a result, Congress limited the authority of the President to
add to the system. However, in 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Law, authorizing
additions to the NFS through the purchase of private lands. Under this and other
authorities, the System has continued to grow slowly, from 154 million acres in 1919
to 192 million acres in 1999. This growth has resulted from purchases and donations
of private land and from land transfers, primarily from the BLM.
Organization
The NFS includes 155 national forests with 188 million acres (97.7% of the
system); 20 national grasslands with 4 million acres (2.0%); and 80 other areas, such
16
This section was prepared by Ross W. Gorte.
17
The second principal FS program continues the original role of the Bureau of Forestry: to
provide forestry assistance to states and to nonindustrial private forest owners. The
authorities for assistance programs were consolidated and clarified in the Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. Forestry research is the third principal FS program.
Congress first authorized forestry research in 1928 “to insure adequate supplies of timber and
other forest products”; the research authorities were streamlined by the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978.
CRS-19
as land utilization projects, purchase units, and research and experimental areas, with
0.5 million acres (0.3%).18 The NFS units are arranged into 9 administrative regions,
each headed by a regional forester. The 9 regional foresters report to the NFS
Deputy Chief, who reports to the Chief of the Forest Service. In contrast to the other
federal land management agencies, the Chief has traditionally been a career employee
of the agency. The Chief reports to the Secretary through the Undersecretary for
Natural Resources and Environment.
Table 4. The National Forest System
Forest Service Region
Region Name
States containinga
NFS lands
National Forest
System Acreageb
No.
States
Federal
Inholdings
Northern
1
ID, MT, ND
25,409,446
2,750,115
Rocky Mountain
2
CO, NE, SD, WY
22,090,903
2,396,234
Southwestern
3
AZ, NM
20,707,503
1,677,606
Intermountain
4
ID, NV, UT, WY
31,995,229
2,271,153
Pacific Southwest
5
CA
20,093,853
3,673,147
Pacific Northwest
6
OR, WA
24,668,760
2,709,922
Southern
8
AL, AR, FL, GA, KY,
LA, MS, NC, OK, PR,
SC, TN, TX, VA
13,056,296
12,357,859
Eastern
9
IL, IN, ME, MI, MN,
MO, NH, NY, OH, PA,
VT, WI, WV
12,026,068
9,930,679
Alaska
10
AK
21,998,614
2,356,521
192,046,672
40,123,236
National Forest System
Total
Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Land Areas of the National Forest System, as
of September 1999. FS-383. Washington, DC: January 2000. pp. 1-3.
Note: In 1966, Region 7, the Lake States Region, was merged with Region 9, the Northeastern
Region, to form the current Eastern Region. Although this merger left 9 regions, the numbering
sequence skips 7 and ends with 10, as shown in the table.
a
This column lists only states (and territories) that currently contain NFS lands.
“Federal” is federally-owned within the boundaries of the NFS that is managed by the FS.
“Inholdings” are private and other government lands within the boundaries of the NFS that are not
administered or regulated by the FS.
b
18
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Land Areas of the National Forest System, as
of September, 1999. FS-383. Washington, DC: January 2000. p. 1.
CRS-20
The NFS regions often are referred to by number, rather than by name. Table
4 identifies the number, states encompassed, and acreage for each of the regions.
Although the NFS lands are concentrated in the 7 Western FS regions (87%), the FS
manages more than half of all federal land in the East. The “inholdings” land shown
in the table is land (primarily private) within the designated boundaries of the national
forests (and other NFS units) which is not owned by the federal government.
Inholdings sometimes pose difficulties for FS land management, because the agency
generally does not regulate the development and use of the inholdings. The uses of
private inholdings may be incompatible with desired uses of the federal lands, and
constraints on crossing inholdings may limit access to some federal lands. The private
landowners, however, object to federal restrictions on the use of their lands and to
unfettered public access across their lands. This is particularly true in the Southern
and Eastern Regions, where nearly half of the land within the NFS boundaries is
inholdings.
Management
The management goals for the National Forest System were first established in
1897, as described above. Management goals were further articulated in §1 of the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), which states:
It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall
be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and
fish purposes. The purposes of this Act are declared to be supplemental to, but not
in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established as
set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897.... The establishment and maintenance of areas
as wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act.
MUSYA directs land and resource management of the national forests for the
combination of uses that best meets the needs of the American people. Management
of the resources is to be coordinated for “multiple use” — considering the relative
values of the various resources, but not necessarily maximizing dollar returns, nor
requiring that any one particular area be managed for all or even most uses. The Act
also calls for “sustained yield” — a high level of resource outputs maintained in
perpetuity but without impairing the productivity of the land. Other statutes such as
the Endangered Species Act that apply to all federal agencies also apply.
NFS planning and management is guided primarily by the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, as amended by the National
Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. Together, these laws encourage foresight
in the use of the nation’s forest resources, and establish a long-range planning process
for the management of the NFS. R.A. focuses on the national, long-range direction
for forest and range conservation and sustain ability. 19 R.A. requires the FS to
prepare four documents for Congress and the public: an Assessment every 10 years
to inventory and monitor the status and trends of the nation’s natural resources; a
19
See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Forest Service Planning: Setting
Strategic Direction Under RPA. OTA-F-441. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., July
1990.
CRS-21
Program every 5 years to guide FS policies;20 a Presidential Statement of Policy to
accompany the Program and guide budget formulation; and an Annual Report to
evaluate implementation of the Program.
NFMA requires the FS to prepare a comprehensive land and resource
management plan for each unit of the NFS, coordinated with the national R.A.
planning process.21 A plan must use an interdisciplinary approach, including economic
analysis and the identification of costs and benefits of all resource uses. Planning
regulations (36 C.F.R. 219) were issued in 1979, then revised in 1982. Revision of
the 1982 regulations was begun with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in
1991, and proposed revised regulations were issued in 1995. In 1997, the Secretary
of Agriculture chartered a Committee of Scientists to review the planning process,
and its March 1999 report, Sustaining the People’s Lands, made numerous
recommendations. On October 5, 1999, new regulations were proposed (64 Fed.
Reg. 54073), and final regulations revising the planning process were issued on
November 9, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 67514). In addition to these requirements, the
national grasslands also are subject to the management direction contained in the
“Bankhead-Jones Act.”
Congress has provided further management direction within the NFS by creating
special designations for certain areas. Some of these designations — wilderness
areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national trails — are part of larger management
systems affecting several federal land management agencies; these special systems are
described in later chapters of this report.
In addition to these special systems, the NFS includes several other types of
congressionally-enacted land designations. Congress has established 19 national
recreation areas (2.6 million acres), 6 scenic areas (0.1 million acres), 2 national
monuments (3.3 million acres, both in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska), 2
national volcanic monuments (0.2 million acres), a scenic-research area (6,630 acres),
and a national historic area (6,540 acres).22 Resource development and use is
generally more restricted in congressionally-designated areas than on general NFS
lands, and specific guidance is typically provided with each designation.
Land Ownership
Designation. As noted above, the President was authorized to proclaim
national forests from the public domain in 1891 (16 U.S.C. 471, now repealed). It
20
Since 1997, provisions in the Interior Appropriations Acts have prohibited the FS from
completing the overdue 1995 RPA Program, because, it has been asserted, the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) planning and reporting requirements have replaced the
RPA program.
21
See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Forest Service Planning:
Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs and Sustaining Ecosystems. OTA-F-505.
Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Feb. 1992.
22
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Land Areas of the National Forest System, as
of September 1999. FS-383. Washington, DC: January 2000. pp. 97-98, 108-113.
CRS-22
appears that no new national forests were proclaimed in the West after 1907.
However, many proclamations and executive orders subsequently have modified
boundaries and changed names, including establishing new national forests from
existing NFS lands. National forests in the East generally were established between
1910 and 1940, with the Hoosier and Wayne Forests (in Indiana and Ohio,
respectively) the last proclaimed, in 1951.
Presidential authority to proclaim forest reserves from the public domain was
restricted piecemeal. The 1897 Act established management direction by restricting
the purposes for the reserves. The 1907 Act that renamed the forest reserves as the
national forests also prohibited the establishment of new reserves in six Western
states, though President Theodore Roosevelt did not sign the law until he had
reserved 16 million acres in those states. Presidential authority to establish new
national forests was not formally repealed until 1976.23 Today, establishing a new
national forest or significantly modifying the boundaries of an existing national forest
requires an Act of Congress.
Acquisition Authority. The Secretary of Agriculture has numerous
authorities to add lands to the NFS. The first and broadest authority was in the
Weeks Law of 1911 (as amended by NMA; 16 U.S.C. 515):
The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to examine, locate, and
purchase such forested, cut-over, or denuded lands within the watersheds of
navigable streams as in his judgment may be necessary to the regulation of the
flow of navigable streams or for the production of timber.
Originally, the acquisitions were to be approved by a National Forest Reservation
Commission, but the Commission was terminated in 1976 by §17 of NMA.
Other laws also authorize land acquisition for the national forests, typically in
specific areas or for specific purposes. For example, §205 of FLPMA authorizes the
acquisition of access corridors to national forests across non-federal lands (43 U.S.C.
1715(a)).
Finally, the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 authorizes and directs the
Secretary of Agriculture to establish (7 U.S.C. 1010):
a program of land conservation and land utilization, in order to correct
maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion,
reforestation, preserving natural resources, protecting fish and wildlife, developing
and protecting recreational facilities, mitigating floods, preventing impairment of
dams and reservoirs, developing energy resources, conserving surface and
subsurface moisture, protecting the watersheds of navigable streams, and
protecting public lands, health, safety, and welfare ....
23
The 1891 authority was repealed by §704(a) of FLPMA (the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976). The following day, in §9 of NFMA, Congress also prohibited the
President from returning any NFS lands to the public domain.
CRS-23
Initially, the Act authorized the Secretary to acquire submarginal lands and lands not
primarily suitable for cultivation (§1011(a)); this provision was repealed in 1962. This
authority allowed the agency to acquire and establish the 20 national grasslands and
8 land utilization projects that account for 2% of the National Forest System. In
addition, millions of acres acquired under this authority have been transferred to the
BLM.
Disposal Authority. The Secretary of Agriculture has numerous authorities
to dispose of NFS lands, all constrained in various ways and seldom used. In 1897,
the President was authorized (16 U.S.C. 473):
to revoke, modify, or suspend any and all Executive orders and proclamations or
any part thereof issued under section 471 of this title, from time to time as he
deems best for the public interests. By such modification he may reduce the area
or change the boundary lines or may vacate altogether any order creating a
national forest.
The 1897 Act also provided for the return to the public domain of lands better suited
for agriculture or mining. These provisions have not been repealed, but §9 of NMA
prohibits the return to the public domain of any land reserved or withdrawn from the
public domain, except by an Act of Congress (16 U.S.C. 1609).
The 1911 Weeks Law authorizes the Secretary to dispose of land “chiefly
valuable for agriculture” which was included in lands acquired (inadvertently or
otherwise), if agricultural use will not injure the forests or stream flows and the lands
are not needed for public purposes (§519).
The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act authorizes the disposal of lands acquired
under its authority, with or without consideration, “under such terms and conditions
as he (the Secretary of Agriculture) deems will best accomplish the purposes of this”
title, but “only to public authorities and only on condition that the property is used for
public purposes” (7 U.S.C. 1011(c)). Yet the grasslands were included in the NFS
in 1976 and current regulations (36 C.F.R. 213) refer to them as being “permanently
held.”
The 1958 Townsites Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 640 acres
adjacent to communities in Alaska or the 11 Western states for townsites, if the
“indigenous community objectives ... outweigh the public objectives and values which
would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership” (16 U.S.C. 478a).
There is to be a public notice of the application for such transfer, and upon a
“satisfactory showing of need,” the Secretary may offer the land to a local
governmental entity at “not less than the fair market value.”
The 1983 Small Tracts Act authorizes the Secretary to dispose of three
categories of land, by sale or exchange, if valued at no more than $150,000 (16
U.S.C. 521e):
(1) tracts of up to 40 acres interspersed with or adjacent to lands transferred out
of federal ownership under the mining laws and which are inefficient to administer
because of their size or location;
CRS-24
(2) tracts of up to 10 acres encroached upon by improvements based in good
faith upon an erroneous survey; or
(3) road rights-of-way substantially surrounded by non-federal land and not
needed by the federal government, subject to the right of first refusal for adjoining
landowners.
The land can be disposed of for cash, lands, interests in land, or any combination
thereof for the value of the land being disposed (§521d) plus “all reasonable costs of
administration, survey, and appraisal incidental to such conveyance” (§521f).
Finally, in title II (the Education Land Grant Act) of P.L. 106-577, Congress
authorized the FS to transfer up to 80 acres of National Forest System land for a
nominal cost upon written application of a public school district; section 202(e)
provides for reversion of title to the federal government if the lands are not used for
the educational purposes for which they were acquired.
Issues
In the past few years, three issues generally have been the focus of discussions
and legislative proposals for FS management of the NFS. One issue is forest health,
especially in the intermountain West. Many believe that excessive timber density and
mortality contributed to the numerous severe forest fires in 1994, 1996, and 2000, and
that rapid action to improve forest health, including salvage of dead and dying trees,
is needed to protect NFS forests and nearby private lands and homes. Critics argue
that adequate timber salvage authority already exists, that salvage sales have degraded
forest health and wasted taxpayer dollars, and that there is no emergency.24 Several
recent Congresses have addressed this issue, but rarely have related measures been
considered on the floor and no bills on point have passed either chamber. In
September 2000, President Clinton requested an additional $1.6 billion (for the Forest
Service and the BLM) for fire protection including funds to pay for the 2000
summer’s fire suppression efforts and for fuel treatment to address forest health in the
“wildland-urban interface” (i.e., near communities threatened by potential wildfire
conflagrations). Congress included much of this funding in the FY2001 Interior
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-291), but will likely face continuing funding and
oversight questions about the programs supported and their effectiveness.
Another issue concerns the planning process created under the NMA. Some
agency critics and Members of Congress have asserted that the Forest Service plans
have failed to provide the management and budgeting guidance needed to fulfill the
agency’s goals, and often have not been implemented. Legislation to provide
additional guidance and to assess management under a community-based consensus
model was enacted as the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery
Act, title IV of the FY1999 Interior Appropriations Act, in the FY1999 Omnibus
24
This issue was particularly controversial during the 17-month Emergency Salvage Timber
Sale Program, enacted in the 1995 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions
Act (P.L. 104-19). See CRS Reports 96-163 A, The “Timber Rider”: Section 2001 of the
Rescissions Act, and 96-659 ENR, The Salvage Timber Sale Rider: Overview and Policy
Issues.
CRS-25
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277). Others argue that any problems
with the current system can be resolved administratively, without legislation. The
regulations promulgated by the Clinton Administration in November 2000
significantly alter the traditional management of the national forests, making
ecological sustainability the overarching principle for planning. The 107th Congress
may choose to review these regulations to assess their potential impact on lands,
resources, and communities and possibly to enact additional direction or guidance.
The third major issue concerns the building of forest roads. Road construction
is supported by those who use the roads for access to the national forests, for timber
harvesting, fire control, recreation (including hunting and fishing), and other purposes.
New roads often are opposed by others, however, on the grounds that they can
degrade the environment both during and after construction, alter areas that some
wish to preserve as pristine wilderness, and are expensive to build and maintain.
Although new road construction has declined substantially in the past decade, critics
continue efforts to reduce or terminate new road construction. The Clinton
Administration issued two new rules regarding forest roads, one on road planning and
one on protection of roadless areas. In January 1998, the Clinton Administration
proposed to revise the rules governing road planning, with a moratorium on new
roads into roadless areas during rule development. The final interim rule temporarily
suspending road building in roadless areas was published in February 1999. The
proposed rule and policy on road planning were published in March 2000, and the
final rule was promulgated and effective on January 12, 2001.
Also, in October 1999, the Clinton Administration proposed regulations to
provide “appropriate long-term protection for ... ‘roadless’ areas” and proposed
preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to examine alternatives. A draft
EIS and proposed regulations were issued in May 2000. A final EIS was issued in
November 2000, and the final regulations on January 12, 2001. The final regulations
were to become effective on March 13, 2001. The Bush Administration has delayed
the effective date of these regulations to May 12, 2001, allowing more opportunity
to examine them before they become effective.
Major Statutes
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978: Act of July 1, 1978; P.L. 95-313, 92
Stat. 365. 16 U.S.C. §2101, et seq.
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (R.A.): Act of
August 17, 1974; P.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 476. 16 U.S.C. §1600, et seq.
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978: Act of June 30,
1978; P.L. 95-307, 92 Stat. 353. 16 U.S.C. §1641, et seq.
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA): Act of June 12, 1960; P.L.
86-517, 75 Stat. 215. 16 U.S.C. §528, et seq.
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NMA): Act of October 22, 1976; P.L.
94-588, 90 Stat. 2949. 16 U.S.C. §1601, et al.
CRS-26
Organic Administration Act of 1897: Act of June 4, 1897; ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11. 16
U.S.C. §473, et seq.
Weeks Law of 1911: Act of March 1, 1911; ch. 186, 36 Stat. 961.
CRS Reports and Committee Prints
CRS Report 95-15, Below-Cost Timber Sales: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report 98-917, Clearcutting in the National Forests: Background and
Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report 98-233, Federal Timber Harvests: Implications for U.S. Timber Supply,
by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS20822, Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report 95-548, Forest Health: Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647, The National Forest System Roadless Area Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report 96-659, The Salvage Timber Sale Rider: Overview and Policy Issues,
by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report 88-571, Special Management Areas in the National Forest System, by
Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report 96-163 A, The “Timber Rider”: Section 2001 of the Rescissions Act,
by Pamela Baldwin.
CRS-27
Bureau of Land Management 25
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 264 million
acres of land, 12% of the land in the United States. Most of this land is in the West,
with about one-third of the total in Alaska. These lands include grasslands, forests,
high mountains, arctic tundra, and deserts. They contain diverse resources, including
fuels and minerals; timber; forage; wild horses and burros; fish and wildlife habitat;
recreation sites; wilderness areas; archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites;
and other natural heritage assets. The agency also is responsible for approximately
700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral resources throughout the nation, and
supervises the mineral operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust
lands. Another key BLM function is wildland fire management and suppression on
approximately 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and certain non-federal land.
Background
BLM was created in the Department of the Interior in 1946 by merging two
agencies — the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service. The General Land
Office, created by Congress in 1812, helped convey lands to pioneers settling the
Western lands. The U.S. Grazing Service was established in 1934 to manage the
public lands best suited for livestock grazing, in accordance with the Taylor Grazing
Act of 1934. This law sought to remedy the deteriorating condition of public
rangelands due to their overuse as well as the drought of the 1920s and depression of
the early 1930s.
The Taylor Grazing Act provided for the management of the public lands
“pending [their] final disposal.” This language expressed the view that the lands
might still be transferred to private or state ownership, and that the federal
government was serving only as custodian until that time. However, patenting of the
more arid Western lands had already slowed, and there was growing concern about
the condition of resources on these lands. These factors, and a changing general
attitude towards the public lands, contributed to their retention by the federal
government.
Numerous management authorities regarding the use of the public lands and their
resources accumulated from the early 1800s to the mid-1900s. In some cases, these
authorities contributed to fragmented resource management and inefficient and
sometimes inconsistent direction for land management. These laws applied not only
to livestock grazing and land disposal, but also to mineral leasing and mining, timber
harvesting, homesteading, and other activities.
For decades Congress debated whether to retain or dispose of the remaining
public lands, and how best to coordinate their management. Studies throughout the
1960s culminated in the 1970 report of the Public Land Law Review Commission
entitled One-Third of the Nation’s Land. Three successive Congresses deliberated,
25
This section was prepared by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS-28
and in 1976 Congress enacted a comprehensive public land law entitled the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).26
FLPMA sometimes is called the BLM Organic Act because portions of it
consolidated and articulated the agency’s responsibilities. This law established,
amended, or repealed many management authorities dealing with public land
withdrawals, land exchanges and acquisitions, rights-of-way, advisory groups, range
management, and the general organization and administration of BLM and the public
lands, which basically were defined as the lands managed by BLM.
Congress also established in FLPMA the national policy that “the public lands
be retained in federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedures
provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve
the national interest ....” This retention policy contributed to a “revolt” during the late
1970s and early 1980s among some Westerners who continued to hope that the
federal presence in their states might be reduced through federal land transfers to
private or state ownership. The resultant “Sagebrush Rebellion” — objecting to
federal management decisions and in some cases to the federal presence itself — was
directed primarily toward the BLM.
Since the 1790s, nearly 1.3 billion acres of federal land have been transferred to
individuals, businesses, and states. Of this total, approximately 287 million acres went
to homesteaders, about 328 million acres have been granted to states for public
schools, public transportation systems, and various public improvement projects, and
more than 94 million acres were given to railroads. The last large transfer of BLM
land occurred in 1980 with passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA). This Act transferred approximately 80 million acres
from BLM to the other federal land management agencies. BLM also is required by
law (ANILCA, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and the Alaska Statehood
Act) to transfer ownership of more than 155 million acres of federal lands to the state
of Alaska and Alaska Natives. Approximately 127 million acres have been conveyed
(or tentatively approved), and BLM continues to transfer land to Alaska and the
Alaska Native corporations.
Organization
BLM headquarters in Washington, DC is headed by the Director, a political
appointee who reports to the Secretary of the Interior through the Assistant Secretary
for Lands and Minerals Management. There are 12 BLM-state offices, each headed
by a State Director, and each BLM-state office administers a geographic area that
generally conforms to the boundary of one or more states. There also are 132 field
offices, each headed by a Field Manager responsible for “on the ground”
implementation of BLM programs and policies. Line authority is from the Director
to State Directors, terminating at the Field Manager level.
In addition, there are six national level support and service centers: the National
Office of Fire and Aviation (Boise, ID); the National Training Center (Phoenix, AZ);
26
Pub. L. No. 94-579; 90 Stat. 2744, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq.
CRS-29
the National Applied Resource Sciences Center (Denver, CO); the National Human
Resources Management Center (Denver, CO); the National Business Center (Denver,
CO); and the National Information Resources Management Center (Denver, CO).
Management
Overview. FLPMA set the framework for the current management of BLM
lands. Among other important provisions, the law provides that:
the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are
periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is
projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other Federal and
State planning efforts ...
management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise
specified by law ...
the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their
resources unless otherwise provided for by statute ...
the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific,
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource,
and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain
public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish
and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and
human occupancy and use ....
Thus, FLPMA established the BLM as a multiple-use, sustained-yield agency.
However, some lands are withdrawn from one or more uses, or managed for a
predominant use. The agency inventories its lands and resources and develops land
use plans for its land units. All BLM lands (except some lands in Alaska) are covered
by a land use plan. Although plans are to be amended or revised as new issues arise
or conditions change, BLM estimates that more than half of its 150 land use plans are
in need of substantial revision or replacement to take account of changes during
recent years. For instance, the agency reports that many of its land use plans are
outdated with regard to use of off-highway vehicles; many plans were developed in
the 1970s or 1980s, when OHV use was relatively low. Additional funds were
provided to BLM for FY2001 for revising land use plans.
Rangelands. Livestock grazing is permitted on an estimated 164 million acres
of BLM land, and there are 18,568 permits and leases for grazing on these lands. In
some Western states, more than half of all cattle graze on public rangelands at least
during part of the year, although the forage consumed on federal lands is a small
percentage of all forage consumed by beef cattle nationally. The grazing of cattle and
sheep, and range management programs generally, are authorized and governed by
the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of
1978 (PRIA). The Taylor Grazing Act converted the public rangelands from a system
of open grazing in common to one of exclusive permits to graze allotted lands.
FLPMA set out overall public land management and policy objectives. PRIA
reflected continuing concern over the condition and productivity of public rangelands
CRS-30
and established more specific range management provisions for BLM. An example
is a new grazing fee formula that was temporary but essentially has been continued
under executive order.
BLM’s range programs include management of about 47,400 wild horses and
burros on public land, under the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
This herd size is significantly more than the agency has determined is appropriate for
the range–which is approximately 27,400 (for FY1999). In an effort to attain this
preferred herd size, so as to maintain an ecological balance on the range, BLM
removes excess wild horses and burros and offers them for adoption. Old, sick, and
lame animals may be put down, while others are retained for possible future adoption.
In FY1999, removal and adoption rates fell significantly from FY1997 levels; the
number of wild horses and burros removed from rangeland decreased from 10,443
to 6,078, and the number of animals adopted dropped from 8,692 to 6,287.
Appropriations for FY2001 for the wild horse and burro program were increased
significantly in part to stem the acceleration of the herd size.
BLM has a variety of programs that aim to improve the range–to increase
productivity, restore ecosystems, prevent resource damage, and relieve conflicts in
resource use. Specific activities include prescribed burns, wildlife/livestock water
developments, and control of noxious weeds.
Forests. BLM manages approximately 47 million acres of forest land
(excluding Western Oregon). Approximately 11 million of these are commercial
forest, while the other 36 million are sources of woodland products, such as fence
posts. BLM also manages 2.4 million acres of the country’s most productive
timberlands: the former Oregon and California (O&C) railroad grant lands and the
Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands in Western Oregon. Of the approximately $68
million total receipts from BLM timber products in FY1999, these lands produced
approximately $66 million. These figures reflect a decline from recent levels of
collected receipts, due to a temporary suspension of timber production in the O&C
lands as a result of litigation concerning implementation of the Pacific Northwest
Forest Plan.
Energy and Minerals. The BLM is responsible for approximately 700 million
acres of federal subsurface minerals, and supervises the mineral operations on about
56 million acres of Indian trust lands. Of the approximately 700 million acres, an
estimated 165 million acres have been withdrawn from mineral entry, leasing, and
sale, except for valid existing rights. Lands in the National Park System (except
National Recreation Areas), Wilderness Preservation System, and the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), are among those withdrawn. Also of the 700 million acres,
mineral development on another 182 million acres is subject to the approval of the
surface management agency, and must not be in conflict with the land designation.
Wildlife refuges (except ANWR), wilderness study areas, and identified roadless
areas, among others, are in this category. For FY2000, the total on-shore mineral
revenues (including royalties, rents, and bonus bids) were $1.6 billion, a substantial
increase over FY1999 primarily due to higher oil and gas prices.
Some minerals are available for development under a claim-staking approach;
others are developed through leasing or sales systems. Activities governed by statute
CRS-31
include the location and patenting of mining claims for hard rock (locatable) minerals;
competitive and noncompetitive leasing of lands for leaseable minerals (oil, gas, coal,
potash, geothermal energy, and certain other minerals); and the sale or free disposal
of common mineral materials not subject to the mining or leasing laws.
Where the surface estate is managed by another agency or a private landowner,
BLM must at least consult before finalizing lease sales. If an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is required, the surface-managing agency typically prepares the EIS
and analyzes the impacts, but BLM issues and supervises the lease. In some
instances, the surface management agency may have to consent to leasing (e.g., in the
context of oil and gas or coal leasing). BLM administers onshore federal energy and
mineral resources, while the Minerals Management Service (also in the Department
of the Interior) handles outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing and collects revenues
(rents and royalties) from on-shore leasing,27 OCS leasing, and mineral development
on Indian trust lands.
Wildlife and Fisheries, Threatened and Endangered Species. BLM
manages the habitats of the diverse plants and animal species that live on the public
lands, including hundreds of threatened and endangered species listed under the
Endangered Species Act. From 1982 to 2000, the number of threatened and
endangered species of animals and plants on BLM lands has risen from 71 to almost
300. The agency manages designated sensitive species including plants and animals
that require priority conservation based on problems such as reduced abundance and
sensitivity to human actions. Difficulties may arise in protecting these species while
allowing other authorized land uses, and at times such conflicts have resulted in
extensive congressional debate concerning the agency’s authorities
FLPMA also requires BLM to identify Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs), where special management is needed to protect fish and wildlife resources;
historic, cultural, or scenic values; and other natural systems or processes. These
areas may be developed only for commercial or extractive uses compatible with the
designation. There are 740 such areas totaling 13.1 million acres; slightly more than
half of this acreage was designated primarily to protect biological resources.
Recreation. The proximity of BLM lands to many areas of population growth
in the West has led to a recent increase in recreation on some BLM lands.
Recreational activities on BLM lands include hunting, fishing, visiting cultural and
natural sites, birdwatching, hiking, picnicking, camping, boating, mountain biking, and
off-highway vehicle driving. BLM estimates there were approximately 62 million
recreational visits in FY1999. The growing and diverse nature of recreation on BLM
lands has increased the challenge of balancing different types of recreation, and
balancing recreation with other land uses.
BLM collects money for permits for recreation on its lands, such as permits
issued to hunting and fishing guide outfitters or to visitors at campgrounds. The
agency also charges entrance and use fees on some of its lands, including under the
27
Most of the revenues collected from on-shore leasing are returned to the states in which the
lands are located (30 U.S.C. §191).
CRS-32
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program authorized by Congress. Under the program,
the BLM allows 100% of the fees charged to be retained at the sites where collected
for improvements to local facilities. In FY1999, BLM collected approximately $6.2
million from recreation use fees.
Preservation. In addition to managing land uses, BLM’s multiple use mandate
includes preservation of resources. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt sought
to develop the BLM’s role in land protection, broadening the agency’s traditional
focus on mining and grazing and other extractive land uses. To this end, on June 19,
2000, the BLM announced the creation of a national landscape conservation system,
comprised of different types of units–national monuments, conservation areas,
wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, scenic trails, historic
trails, and other areas. It is unclear whether the new Administration will continue this
system.
Approximately 39,000,000 acres are in the system, which is about 15% of the
land BLM administers. According to BLM statements, these units were incorporated
into a system to give them greater recognition, management attention, and resources.
Areas within the system will continue to be managed based on their relevant
authorities; for instance, wilderness areas will be managed in accordance with FLPMA
and the Wilderness Act.
The agency’s 15 national monuments and 13 national conservation areas are a
particular focus of the system. One of the national monuments was created by
Congress, while 14 were designated by the President under his authority in the
Antiquities Act of 1906 to protect objects of historic and scientific interest on federal
lands. The 13 national conservation areas were created by acts of Congress. While
different management directives apply to each monument and conservation area, BLM
management is expected to emphasize resource conservation overall. While in general
the units would serve outdoor recreationists, visitor facilities will be located outside
the areas in adjacent communities. Typically too, other activities, such as grazing and
hunting, may continue if they are compatible with the designation.
The national landscape conservation system also includes 5.3 million acres of
designated wilderness, and 17.3 million acres of wilderness study areas. BLM is to
manage the wilderness study areas so as to maintain their suitability for wilderness
designation until legislation is enacted to determine their final status. (For more
information on wilderness, see the later chapter on the National Wilderness
Preservation System.)
Fire Management. BLM carries out a fire management program on
approximately 370 million acres of DOI, and certain other federal and non-federal
lands. (The Forest Service provides fire protection of the national forests.) The
program includes prevention and preparedness, prescribed fire, fuel reduction,
suppression, and rehabilitation activities. The agency sometimes uses prescribed fire
and mechanical fuels treatments to reduce hazardous fuels and improve ecosystem
health. Fire suppression often is provided by federal fire crews, although the National
Interagency Fire Center in Boise, ID often coordinates fire suppression when local
agencies need assistance. In FY1999, BLM suppressed 2,248 wildland fires on BLM
land that burned more than 2.1 million acres, and contributed to suppression of 796
CRS-33
fires on approximately 1.2 million acres of non-BLM land. Following fires, BLM may
rehabilitate land and resources, for instance, by stabilizing erodible soil.
Land and Mineral Records. BLM’s Public Land Survey System is the
foundation of the nation’s land tenure system. The agency maintains federal land title
records and preserves land survey records for government and private use. The
agency conducts cadastral surveys to locate and mark the boundaries of federal and
Indian lands. Surveys also are a prerequisite for patenting public land. BLM
maintains over 1 billion land and mineral records from the nation’s history, including
legal land descriptions, land and mineral ownership and entitlement records, and land
withdrawal records.
BLM is in the process of making its public lands and mineral records available
on the Internet to improve public access to, as well as the quality of, the information.
The survey records and land descriptions comprising the Public Land Survey System
are being made available in a digital, geospatial format that shows the location of a
parcel of land in relationship to other parcels. The information for some states is
currently available in the new system.28 BLM also is involved in a joint project with
the Forest Service, states, counties, and private industry to develop a National
Integrated Land System which will serve as a geospatial reference for lands
throughout the nation regardless of ownership. A goal is to develop a common
approach to compiling and making available the documents relating to the current
status of the land, so as to facilitate cooperative land management and enable users
to obtain all the attributes about a chosen parcel of land.29
Other Resources. Nearly 24 million acres of BLM land, mostly in Alaska,
are managed as riparian or wetland systems. Riparian lands may dissipate flood
waters, allow for recreation, and provide crucial habitat for fish and wildlife. While
these are generally multiple use lands, in some sensitive areas certain uses are
incompatible. Grazing in riparian areas in the continental West has been especially
controversial.
BLM also oversees the cultural properties on its lands, and inventories such
resources. Nearly 14 million acres have been inventoried, and approximately 228,000
archaeological and historical sites have been identified on these acres. The agency
projects approximately 4 to 4.5 million cultural sites on all its lands.
Land Ownership
General. BLM lands often are intermingled with other federal or private lands.
Many federal grants consisted of alternating sections of lands, often referred to as
“checkerboard,” resulting in a mixed ownership grid pattern. FLPMA consolidated
procedures and clarified responsibilities regarding problems that arise because of this
28
The system, the Geographic Coordinate Data Base, is available on the BLM website at
[http://www.blm.gov/gcdb/].
29
More information on the National Integrated Land System is available on the BLM website
at [http://www.blm.gov/nils/].
CRS-34
ownership pattern, including rights-of-way across public lands for roads, trails,
pipelines, power lines, canals, reservoirs, etc. FLPMA also provided for land
exchanges, acquisitions, disposals, and remedies for certain title problems.
Acquisition Authority.30 BLM has rather broad, general authority to acquire
lands principally under §205 of FLPMA. Specifically, the Secretary is authorized (43
U.S.C. §1715(a)):
to acquire pursuant to this Act [FLPMA] by purchase, exchange, donation, or
eminent domain, lands or interests therein: Provided, That with respect to the
public lands, the Secretary may exercise the power of eminent domain only if
necessary to secure access to public lands, and then only if the lands so acquired
are confined to as narrow a corridor as is necessary to serve such purpose.
BLM may acquire land or interests in land, especially inholdings, to protect
threatened natural and cultural resources, increase opportunities for public recreation,
restore the health of the land, and improve management of these areas. The agency
principally acquires land by exchange, and undertakes approximately 60 land
exchanges a year. Although FLPMA and NMA were amended in 1988 to “streamline
... and expedite” the process, exchanges may still be time consuming and costly
because of problems related to land valuation, cultural and archaeological resources
inventories, and other issues.
Disposal Authority. The BLM can dispose of public lands under several
authorities. The primary means of disposal is through exchanges, just as the primary
means of acquisition is through exchanges. Other disposal authorities are sales under
FLPMA, patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, transfers to other
governmental units for public purposes, the disposal of land under the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act, and other statutes.31
With regard to sales, §203 of FLPMA authorized the BLM to sell certain tracts
of public land that meet specific criteria (43 U.S.C. §1713(a)):
30
Under Title II of Pub. L. No. 106-248, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (43
U.S.C. §2301)–the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may use funds
from the disposal of certain BLM lands to acquire inholdings and other non-federal lands. A
description of this act is provided under “disposal authority.”
31
Other authorities provide for land sales in particular areas. A key example is the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-263), which provides for the
disposal, by sale or exchange, of lands in Clark County, Nevada. The proceeds are to be used
to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada, among other purposes.
The Homestead Act and many other authorities for disposing of the public lands were
repealed by FLPMA in 1976, with a 10-year extension in Alaska. The General Services
Administration has the authority to dispose of surplus federal property under the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949; however, that Act generally excludes the
public domain, mineral lands, and lands previously withdrawn or reserved from the public
domain (40 U.S.C. §472(d)(1)).
CRS-35
(1)
such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and
uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for
management by another Federal department or agency; or
(2)
such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer
required for that or any other Federal purpose; or
(3)
disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but
not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which
cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and
which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited
to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such
tract in Federal ownership.
The size of the tracts for sale is to be determined by “the land use capabilities
and development requirements.” Proposals to sell tracts of more than 2,500 acres
must first be submitted to Congress, and such sales may be made unless disapproved
by Congress.32 Tracts are to be sold at not less than their fair market value, generally
through competitive bidding, although modified competition and non-competitive
sales are allowed.33
The General Mining Law of 1872 allows access to certain minerals on federal
lands that have not been withdrawn from entry. Minerals within a valid mining claim
can be developed without obtaining full title to the land. However, with evidence of
minerals and sufficient developmental effort, mining claims can be patented, with full
title transferred to the claimant upon payment of the appropriate fee — $5.00 per acre
for vein or lode claims (30 U.S.C. §29) or $2.50 per acre for placer claims (30 U.S.C.
§37). Non-mineral lands used for associated milling or other processing operations
can also be patented (30 U.S.C. §42). Patented lands may be used for purposes other
than mineral development.
The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. §869) authorizes the
Secretary, upon application by a qualified applicant, to:
dispose of any public lands to a State, Territory, county, municipality, or other
State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public
purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit association for any
recreational or any public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation or
other creating authority.
32
43 U.S.C. §1713 (c). This procedure and certain other provisions of FLPMA may be
unconstitutional under Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha, 462 U.S.
919 (1983).
33
Desert lands also can be disposed under other laws. The Carey Act (43 U.S.C. §641)
authorizes transfers to a state, upon application and meeting certain requirements, while the
Desert Land Entry Act (43 U.S.C. §321) allows citizens to reclaim and patent 320 acres of
desert public land. These latter provisions are seldom used, however, because the lands must
be classified as available and sufficient water rights must be obtained.
CRS-36
The Act specifies conditions, qualifications, and acreage limitations for transfer,
and provides for restoring the lands to the public domain if conditions are not met.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (Title II of Pub. L. No. 106-248,
43 U.S.C. §2301) provides for the sale or exchange of land identified for disposal
under BLM’s land use plans “as in effect” at enactment. The Secretary of the Interior
is to establish a program to complete the legal requirements of lands so identified for
disposal, and land sales generally are to be conducted under the provisions of
FLPMA. The proceeds from the sale or exchange of public land are to be deposited
into a separate Treasury account (the Federal Land Disposal Account). Funds in the
account are available to both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture to acquire inholdings and other non-federal lands (or interests therein)
that are adjacent to federal lands and contain exceptional resources. However, the
Secretary of the Interior can use not more than 20% of the funds in the account for
administrative and other expenses of the program. Not less than 80% of the funds for
acquiring land are to be used to purchase land in the same state in which the funds
were generated, while the remaining funds may be used to purchase land in any state.
The law’s findings state that it would “allow for the reconfiguration of land ownership
patterns to better facilitate resource management; contribute to administrative
efficiency within Federal land management units; and allow for increased effectiveness
of the allocation of fiscal and human resources within the Federal land management
agencies...”
Withdrawals. FLPMA also mandated review of public land withdrawals in
11 Western states to determine whether, and for how long, existing withdrawals
should be continued. A withdrawal is an action that restricts the use or disposition
of public lands; for instance, some lands are withdrawn from mining. The agency
continues to review approximately 70 million withdrawn acres, giving priority to
about 26 million acres that are expected to be returned by another agency to BLM,
or, in the case of BLM withdrawals, made available for one or more uses. To date,
BLM has completed reviewing approximately 7 million withdrawn acres, mostly BLM
and Bureau of Reclamation land; the withdrawals on more than 6 million of these
acres have been revoked. The review process is likely to continue over the next
several years, in part because the lands must be considered in BLM’s planning process
and the withdrawals must be supported by documentation under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Issues
Management of BLM lands has raised a number of issues, mostly stemming from
their diverse uses. The development and titling of hardrock minerals on public lands
continues to receive attention. A focus has been the BLM’s revision of the hardrock
mining regulations, which are expected to reduce environmental damage from mining
but also decrease mining activity. A perennial debate is whether to change the 1872
mining law, which allows claimants to develop the minerals within a claim without
paying royalties, and to patent the lands and obtain full title to the land and its
minerals for a small fee ($2.50 or $5.00 an acre). The amount of land withdrawn
from mineral entry or development has long been controversial and the subject of
many lawsuits. Most recently, a legal opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of
the Interior during the Clinton Administration restricting each mining claim to one
CRS-37
five-acre millsite has been contentious, and addressed in recent provisions of law (P.L.
106-113, §337).
Rangeland management issues include the terms and renewal of expiring grazing
permits and leases, and recent changes in grazing regulations that in part redefined
“grazing preference” and other terms. The restriction or elimination of grazing on
federal land because of environmental and recreational concerns has been discussed,
and the grazing fee that the federal government charges for private livestock grazing
on federal lands has been controversial since its inception. Other range issues include
the condition of federal rangelands, the spread of invasive plant species, consistency
of BLM and Forest Service grazing programs, the role of Resource Advisory
Councils, access across private lands, and management of riparian areas. Concerns
about the wild horse and burro program relate to the removal, adoption, and
treatment of the animals and BLM’s administration of the program.
A number of preservation and recreation matters have come to the fore. These
include whether to establish or restrict protective designations; the effect of protective
designations on land uses; and the role of Congress, states, and the public in making
designations. Congress might examine recent executive actions designating national
monuments on BLM and other federal lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906, and
discuss whether to restrict the President’s authority to create monuments or the
authority of BLM and other federal agencies to manage land as national monuments.
Another issue is access to public lands, including restrictions such as limits on use of
off-highway vehicles. Other issues are the impact of recreation on resources and
facilities and the collection of fees for recreation use, for example, under the
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program.
Another key topic relates to the amount of land BLM owns and how the land is
managed. Contemporary questions have centered on how much land should be
acquired versus conveyed to state, local, or private ownership, and under what
circumstances. Congress might confront concerns about acquisition of private land,
the effectiveness of land exchange programs, and the effect of public ownership on
state taxes and authorities. A related issue is whether to expand the non-federal role
in managing federal lands.
Major Statutes
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980: Act of Dec. 2, 1980; P.L.
96-487, 94 Stat. 2371. 16 U.S.C. §§3101, et seq.
Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988: Act of Aug. 20, 1988; P.L. 100-409,
102 Stat. 1086. 43 U.S.C. §1716.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: Act of Oct. 21, 1976; P.L. 94579, 90 Stat. 2744. 43 U.S.C. §§1701, et seq.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act: Act of July 25, 2000; P.L. 106-248, 114
Stat. 613. 43 U.S.C. §§2301, et seq.
CRS-38
General Mining Law of 1872: R.S. 2319, derived from Act of May 10, 1872; ch.
152, 17 Stat. 91. 30 U.S.C. §§22, et seq.
Materials Act of 1947: Act of July 31, 1947; ch. 406, 61 Stat. 681. 30 U.S.C.
§§601, et seq.
Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands: Act of Aug. 7, 1947; ch. 513, 61 Stat. 913.
30 U.S.C. §§351-359.
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920: Act of Feb. 25, 1920; ch. 85, 41 Stat. 437. 30 U.S.C.
§§181, et seq.
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978: Act of Oct. 25, 1978; P.L. 95-514, 92
Stat. 1803. 43 U.S.C. §§1901, et seq.
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934: Act of June 28, 1934; ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269. 43
U.S.C. §§315, et seq.
Wild Horses and Burros Act of 1971: Act of Dec. 15, 1971; P.L. 92-195, 85 Stat.
649. 16 U.S.C. §§1331, et seq.
CRS Reports and Committee Prints
CRS Report IB89130, The 1872 Mining Law, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS20647, Authority of a President to Modify or Eliminate a National
Monument, by Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report 98-851, Federal Grazing Regulations: Public Lands Council v. Babbitt,
by Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report 97-274, Federal Land Management: Appeals and Litigation, by Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report 96-450, Grazing Fees: An Overview, by Betsy Cody.
CRS Report RL30528, National Monuments and the Antiquities Act: Recent
Designations and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report 96-97, Survey of Grazing Programs in Western States, by Pamela
Baldwin and Betsy Cody.
CRS Report 97-370, Wild Horse and Burro Management, by Betsy Cody.
CRS-39
The National Wildlife Refuge System 34
The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is dedicated primarily to the
conservation of animals and plants. Other uses, whether hunting, fishing, recreation,
timber harvest, grazing, etc., are permitted only to the extent that they are compatible
with the purposes for which the refuge was created.35 Thus, while some have
characterized the NWRS as intermediate in resource protection between the BLM and
FS lands on the one hand, and NPS lands on the other, this is not entirely accurate.36
In some ways, the NWRS resembles the FS or BLM lands in that some types of
commercial uses are allowed, but in certain cases, various uses (most notably public
access) can be substantially more restrictive than for NPS lands.
Background
The first national wildlife refuge (nwr) was established at Pelican Island, FL, by
executive order of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. By September 30, 1999,
there were 521 refuges totaling 90.6 million acres in 50 states, the Pacific Territories,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.37 (See figure 3 for numbers of units (page 40)
and figure 4 for acreage (page 40). By far the largest increase in acreage occurred
with the addition of 53 million acres of refuge land under the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act of 1980. Currently, 76.2 million acres of refuge lands (84%)
are in Alaska. Within 67 of the refuges, there are 85 designated wilderness areas,
ranging from 2 acres at Green Bay NWR in Wisconsin to 8.0 million acres at Arctic
NWR in Alaska.
The NWRS includes two other categories of land besides refuges: 200
Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs), that include lands operated under agreements
with the farmers and ranchers who own the land, and 50 Wildlife Coordination Areas
(WCAs), operated under agreements with state agencies. These bring the NWRS to
771 units.38 These two additional categories bring the total land in the NWRS
(counting refuges, WPAs, and WCAs) to 93.6 million acres. In approximately 1.6
million acres of the NWRS, FWS has secondary jurisdiction: the lands are managed
by FWS, but owned or administered principally by some other agency or person.
34
This section was prepared by M. Lynne Corn.
35
Where there are distinct pre-existing rights (e.g., to develop minerals, oil and gas, easements,
etc.), these are rarely acquired along with the land itself. Where they exist and their ownership
is considered essential, these rights must be purchased from the landowners, who are
otherwise able to develop them.
36
For example, some refuges (especially island refuges for nesting seabirds) may be closed to
the public — an unlikely restriction for an NPS area, given the NPS duty to provide for public
enjoyment of park resources.
37
In FY1992, there was a consolidation of units of the Refuge System. The drop in numbers
of units shown in figure 3 in that year is due to this change.
38
The 9 research centers, 42 administrative sites, and 67 fish hatcheries administered by FWS
are not part of the System, and total only 24,000 acres.
CRS-40
Figure 3. Number of Units in the National Wildlife Refuge System
from Fiscal Years 1980 to 1999
900
604
615
620
625
631
640
645
647
668
691
706
717
719
700
733
744
752
760
765
771
600
300
0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
NWRs
WPAs
WCAs
Figure 4. Acreage in the National Wildlife Refuge System from Fiscal
Years 1980 to 1999
(in millions of acres)
100
88.7
88.9
88.9
90.2
90.4
90.4
90.6
90.8
91.2
90.6
90.7
90.9
91.5
91.8
92.3
92.6
92.9
93.3
93.5
80
60
40
34.9
20
0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
NWRs
WPAs
WCAs
Major additions to the System were made in late 1980 under ANILCA.
Source: Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as of the end
of each fiscal year.
CRS-41
Organization and Management
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended,
stated the purpose for establishing the System as consolidation of the several
authorities of the Secretary of the Interior over lands administered for the
conservation and protection of fish and wildlife. Conservation of wildlife is the
primary emphasis in the three types of areas in the NWRS, but the options for
alternative resource use within the areas vary.
Wildlife refuges provide habitat for various plant and animal species, particularly
emphasizing habitat for migratory waterfowl and for endangered species. Individual
refuges may consist of single contiguous blocks or disjunct parcels scattered over a
larger area. Research on wildlife conservation is carried out by the FWS on refuges
(as well as on other areas).39 Energy and mineral activities are permitted in certain
refuges and under certain circumstances; any mineral rights owned by the United
States are administered by BLM. Hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses are
frequently permitted, but only to the extent that these activities are compatible with
the major purposes for which a particular refuge was established. In refuges set aside
for migratory birds, waterfowl hunting is limited to 40% of the refuge area unless the
Secretary determines that hunting in a greater area is beneficial.
WPAs are managed primarily to provide breeding habitat for migratory
waterfowl and nearly three-fourths of the land is held under an agreement, easement,
or lease, rather than owned outright.40 These areas are found mainly in the potholes
and interior wetlands of the north central states, a region sometimes called “North
America’s Duck Factory.” In these areas, there is considerably less conflicting
resource use, in part because the areas managed under lease are not subject to the
federal mining and mineral leasing laws, and because the size of individual tracts is
relatively small. However, the leased lands may be less secure as wildlife habitat
because they may be converted later to agricultural use by the private owners. As of
September 30, 1999, these areas totaled 2.6 million acres, of which 1.9 million acres
are managed under leases, easements, or agreements with private landowners. The
WCAs (0.3 million acres) are managed by state wildlife agencies under cooperative
agreements with FWS.
The management of the NWRS is divided into three tiers: the 771 individual
NWRS units under 7 regional offices, and the national office in Washington, DC.
Each of the seven regional offices is administered by a Regional Director who has a
considerable degree of autonomy in operating the refuges within the region. FWS is
headed by a Director, a Deputy Director, and six Assistant Directors. These Assistant
Directors head programs for Policy, Budget and Administration; External Affairs;
Refuges and Wildlife; Ecological Services; Fisheries; and International Affairs. It is
the directorate for Refuges and Wildlife which is directly responsible for management
of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
39
Some parts of the research function were administratively transferred to the U.S. Geological
Survey (in the Department of the Interior) in FY1996.
40
This program is distinct from USDA programs run to conserve wetlands.
CRS-42
Land Ownership
Growth of the NWRS may come about in a number of ways. Some units have
been created by specific Acts of Congress (e.g., Protection Island NWR in
Washington, Bayou Sauvage NWR in Louisiana, or John Heinz NWR in
Pennsylvania).41 Units have also been created by executive order; FLPMA authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw lands from the public domain for additions
to the NWRS, although all withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres are subject to
congressional approval procedures (43 U.S.C. §1714(c)).42 Other laws provide
general authority to expand the NWRS, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Endangered Species Act.
Acquisition Authority. The primary FWS land acquisition authority is the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1929. This Act authorizes the Secretary to
recommend areas “necessary for the conservation of migratory birds”43 to the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, after consulting with the relevant governor
(or state agency) and appropriate local government officials (16 U.S.C. §715c). The
Secretary may then purchase or rent areas approved by the Commission (§715d(1)),
and “acquire, by gift or devise, any area or interest therein ...” (§715d(2)).44 In
contrast to land acquisition for the National Park System (where the lands must be
within the boundaries of units defined by Congress), FWS can acquire new lands that
may comprise a new refuge under the general FWS authorities just cited, as well as
under the Endangered Species Act and certain other laws. The MBTA is the most
frequently used authority for funding reasons. (See below.)
Lands and interests in lands to create specific NWRS units may be acquired from
another agency, or accepted as donations, or purchased. Purchases may be made on
a willing buyer/willing seller basis or under condemnation authorities, although formal
condemnation is very rarely used.45 In general, new acquisitions usually result from
41
Of the 521 refuges, 34 (6.5%) were created under specific laws naming those particular
refuges.
42
These procedures result in congressional termination of executive actions other than by
statute, and thus may be unconstitutional in light of INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
43
While the MBTA definition of “migratory bird” includes, potentially, almost all types of
birds, in practice, the focus of acquisition has been on game birds (e.g., certain ducks, geese,
etc.) Non-game species tend to benefit secondarily, though areas without game birds are
rarely acquired with MBTA funds.
44
This authority (and its related funding mechanism) is so commonly used that the distribution
of refuges is a good approximation of the four major flyways for migratory waterfowl.
45
Some critics have suggested that the existence of condemnation authority has clouded some
land purchases, to the extent that some sellers feel that they have little real choice in the
decision to sell, even if condemnation authority was not formally used. On the other hand, a
few sellers have sought formal condemnation since a sale under condemnation may offer
important tax advantages under some circumstances. The extent of either of these practices
is unclear, but legislation was introduced in the 105th Congress to restrict FWS land
acquisitions without specific congressional approval. Ultimately, a provision was added in
(continued...)
CRS-43
transfers from the public domain or lands purchased outright from other owners.
These purchases are rarely large. In FY1999, 122,868 acres were acquired (as
opposed to transferred from other federal agencies), while $124.9 million was spent
on acquisition.46
The purchase of refuge lands is financed primarily through two funding sources:
the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF) and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), described earlier, in the chapter entitled Federal Lands
Financing. MBCF acquisitions have emphasized wetlands essential for migratory
waterfowl, while LWCF acquisitions have encompassed the gamut of NWRS
purposes. MBCF is supported from three sources (amounts in parentheses are
FY2000 receipts deposited into the MBCF):
! the sale of “hunting and conservation stamps” (better known as “duck
stamps”) purchased by hunters and certain visitors to refuges ($25.0 million);
! import duties on arms and ammunition ($17.0 million); and
! 70% of certain refuge entrance fees ($0.21million).
MBCF funds are permanently appropriated to the extent of these receipts, and
after paying the engraving, printing, and related costs, may be used for the “location,
ascertainment, and acquisition of suitable areas for migratory bird refuges ... and
administrative costs incurred in the acquisition” (16 U.S.C. §718d(b)). However, the
acquisition must be “approved by the Governor of the State or appropriate State
agency” (§715k-5). The predictability of MBCF funding makes it assume special
importance in the FWS budget. This contrasts with LWCF funding, which has
fluctuated significantly from year to year. In FY2001, the appropriations for the two
sources were $42.7 million from the MBCF, and $140.0 million from the LWCF for
FWS land acquisition.
Disposal Authority. With certain exceptions, NWRS lands can be disposed
only by an Act of Congress (16 U.S.C. §668dd(a)(6)). Also, for refuge lands
reserved from the public domain, FLPMA prohibits the Secretary from modifying or
revoking any withdrawal which added lands to the NWRS (43 U.S.C. §1714(j)). For
acquired lands, disposal is allowed only if: (1) the disposal is part of an authorized
land exchange (16 U.S.C. §668dd(a)(6) and (b)(3)); or (2) the Secretary determines
the lands are no longer needed and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
45
(...continued)
P.L. 105-277 forbidding the use of “any of the funds appropriated in this Act for the purchase
of lands or interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new unit of the National
Wildlife Refuge System unless the purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the reprogramming procedures contained
in Senate Report 105-56.” However, because the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund is not
appropriated in that act, purchases from that fund are unaffected by this provision.
46
The dollars spent were not necessarily spent on these particular acres, due to a lag between
payments and transfers of title, completion of paperwork, etc.
CRS-44
approves (§668dd(a)(5)). In the latter case, the disposal must recover the acquisition
cost or be at the fair market value (whichever is higher).
Issues
The most enduring controversy concerning the NWRS has been that of
conflicting uses, with some critics arguing that FWS has been too lenient in its
decisions about commercial and extractive uses or developed recreation; others
criticize its policies as too restrictive. Specific conflicts have arisen between such
activities as grazing, energy extraction, power boat recreation, motorized access, and
similar activities on the one hand, and the purposes for which refuges were designated
on the other.47
In recent years, a controversy developed over the propriety of hunting (and, to
a lesser extent, fishing) on refuge lands. The pro-hunting position is based largely on
2 arguments: (1) the purchase of migratory duck stamps by hunters has paid for a
substantial portion of refuge land, mainly in areas suitable for waterfowl habitat; and
(2) the animal population is the appropriate measure of conservation in their view, and
removal of individual animals for human use is not harmful, and may be beneficial as
long as the population growth rate is maintained. The anti-hunting argument holds
that no place can be considered a “refuge” if its major wildlife residents are regularly
hunted. They contend further that since fewer people now hunt 48 and the enjoyment
of this sport hinders use of the land by others (by restricting access for safety
reasons), then hunting should be eliminated to allow fuller access by non-hunting
users. While various bills have been introduced over the years to eliminate or restrict
hunting on refuges, others have been introduced to support it.
In the 105th Congress, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 (P.L. 105-57) addressed these over-arching management controversies facing
the System. Under this law, the purpose of the NWRS is the “conservation,
management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats.” Another key provision of this law designates
“compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation as
priority public uses of the refuge system.” It also requires that public priority uses
must “receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning and
management within the System.” At the same time, the law continues the current
statutory policy that activities that are not wildlife-dependent (e.g., grazing, growing
hay, etc.) may be permitted, provided they are wildlife-compatible. Final regulations
governing the determination of compatibility were published on October 18, 2000 (65
FR 62457). Some interest groups argued that the regulations did not allow for
47
U.S. General Accounting Office. National Wildlife Refuges: Continuing Problems with
Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action. GAO/RCED 89-196. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., September 1989. 84 p.
48
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: August 1997. The number
of hunters did not decline significantly from the previous survey 5 years earlier, but as a
percent of the total U.S. population, there was a slight decline in hunters.
CRS-45
sufficient public access for some forms of recreation, such as off-road vehicles or
personal watercraft. Congressional hearings are possible.
Centennial Observation and System Maintenance. The centennial of
the NWRS will be observed in 2003. The celebration is expected to be marked by
activities at the refuges. FWS anticipates expanding visitor outreach and
interpretation, as well as refurbishing existing facilities. At the same time, an 18member coalition (ranging from the Wilderness Society to the National Rifle
Association) is pressing for using the centennial as an occasion to address a backlog
of operations and maintenance needs (estimated by some at over $800 million49). The
former Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Rep. Ralph
Regula, also has emphasized the need for addressing the backlog.50 That and other
issues also were covered in a report on 10 specific “refuges in crisis,” by the National
Audubon Society. 51 Congress may consider whether to fund additional efforts to
improve the system as part of the centennial observation.
Major Statutes
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980: Act of December 2, 1980;
P.L. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371. 16 U.S.C. §3101, et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956: Act of August 8, 1956; ch. 1036, 70 Stat. 1120. 16
U.S.C. §742a, et seq.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966: Act of October 15,
1966; P.L. 90-404, 80 Stat. 927. 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Act of October 9, 1997;
P.L. 105-57. 16 U.S.C. §668dd.
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Act of June 30, 1972; P.L. 92-330, 86
Stat. 399. 16 U.S.C. §668dd note. (This is a typical statute establishing a
refuge.)
49
Grunwald, Michael. Refuges’ Resurgence Faces Uncertainty. Washington Post. February
7, 2001, p. A3.
50
U.S. House of Representatives. Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations for 2001. Hearings, Part 7. P. 280-284. (Questions from Chairman Regula
and responses from FWS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark.) In this discussion, the agency’s
combined maintenance and operations backlog estimate is much higher: $1.8 billion. The
reason for the difference is unclear. In response to questions submitted by Rep. Norman
Dicks, in May 2000 the DOI Budget Office estimated the backlog (for maintenance only) at
$790 million to $1.1 billion.
51
See [http://www.audubon.org/campaign/refuge_report/index.html].
CRS-46
CRS Reports and Committee Prints
CRS Report 90-120, Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 86-722, A Guide to Trust Funds, Special Accounts, and Foundations in
the Fish and Wildlife Budget, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 92-597, National Wildlife Refuges: Places to Hunt?, by Jennifer A.
Heck.
CRS-47
The National Park System 52
Perhaps the federal land category best known to the public is the National Park
System. The National Park Service (NPS) currently manages 380 System units,
including 55 units formally entitled “national parks” (often referred to as the “crown
jewels” of the System), as well as national monuments, battlefields, military parks,
historical parks, historic sites, lakeshores, seashores, recreation areas, reserves,
preserves, and scenic rivers and trails. The System has grown to a total of 83.6
million acres–77.9 million acres of federal land plus 5.7 million acres of non-federal
land–in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Passage of ANILCA
in 1980 roughly doubled the acreage of the National Park System because of the large
size of the new parks in Alaska. The acreage has been relatively stable in recent years,
as new authorizations and land acquisitions have been modest.
In FY1999, there were approximately 287 million recreation visits to units of the
National Park System.53 The NPS has the often contradictory mission of facilitating
access and serving visitors while protecting and preserving the natural, historic, and
cultural resources of the lands and resources it manages.
Background
By the Act of March 1, 1872, Congress established Yellowstone National Park
in the then-territories of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming “as a public park or
pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.”54 The Park was
placed under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior who was
responsible for developing regulations to “provide for the preservation, from injury
or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within
said park, and their retention in their natural condition.”55 Other park functions were
to include developing visitor accommodations, building roads and trails, removing
trespassers (mostly poachers) from the park, and protecting “against wanton
destruction of fish and game.”
When Yellowstone National Park was authorized, there was no concept or plan
for the development of a system of such parks. The concept now firmly established
as the National Park System, embracing a diversity of natural and cultural resources
nationwide, evolved slowly over the years. This idea of a national park was an
American invention of historic proportions, marking the start of a global conservation
movement that today accounts for hundreds of national parks (or equivalent
conservation preserves) throughout the world. The American National Park System
continues to serve as an international model for preservation.
52
This section was prepared by David Whiteman.
53
See the NPS website at: [http://www.aqd.nps.gov/stats/].
54
16 U.S.C. §21.
55
16 U.S.C. §22. In the early years, the Interior Department relied on the U.S. Army for
enforcement of the regulations and protection of the park units.
CRS-48
At the same time that interest was growing in preserving the scenic wonders of
the American West, efforts were underway to protect the sites and structures
associated with early Native American cultures, particularly in the Southwest. In
1906, Congress enacted the Antiquities Act to authorize the President “to declare by
public proclamation [as national monuments] historic and prehistoric structures and
other objects of historic or scientific interest.”56 In the years following the
establishment of Yellowstone, national parks and monuments were authorized or
proclaimed, principally from the public domain lands in the West, and were
administered by the Department of the Interior (initially with help from the U.S.
Army). However, no single agency provided unified management of the varied
federal parklands.
On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Act creating the
National Park Service, a new federal agency in the Department of the Interior with
the responsibility for protecting the national parks and many of the monuments then
in existence and those yet to be established. This action reflected a developing
national concern for preserving the nation’s heritage. The “Organic Act” states “the
[National Park] Service then established shall promote and regulate the use of Federal
areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations . . . to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”57 By executive order in 1933,
President Franklin D. Roosevelt transferred 63 national monuments and military sites
from the Forest Service and War Department to the National Park Service. This
action was a major step in the development of a truly national system of parks.
Of the four federal land management agencies, the NPS manages the most
diverse collection of units. More than 20 different designations are used for park sites
or areas, ranging from the traditional national park designation to scenic rivers and
trails, memorials, battlefields, historic sites, historic parks, seashores, lakeshores,
recreation areas, and monuments. Because of this variety of park unit designations
and the public perception of lesser status for units lacking the “national park”
designation, Congress sought to establish that all units in the System are to be
considered of equal value. A 1970 law stated that all NPS units are part of “one
national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and inspiration of all
people of the United States. . .”.58 In 1978, Congress amended that law to reassert
the system-wide standard of protection for all areas administered by the NPS.59
Organization and Management
The National Park Service manages the National Park System. The Director of
the National Park Service, headquartered in Washington, DC, is the chief
administrative officer of the Service, with an immediate staff of two Deputy Directors,
56
16 U.S.C. §431.
57
16 U.S.C. §1.
58
The General Authorities Act of 1970, 16 U.S.C. §1a-1, §1c.
59
The Redwoods National Park Act, 16 U.S.C. §1a-1.
CRS-49
five Associate Directors, and a number of policy and program office managers.
Directly overseeing NPS operations is the Interior Department’s Assistant Secretary
for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. In addition, the National Park Service Advisory Board,
composed of private citizens with requisite experience and expertise, advises on
management policies and on possible additions to the System. 60
The individual park units are arranged in 7 regional offices, each headed by a
Regional Director. The NPS had traditionally operated with 10 regional offices but
recently eliminated 3, while at the same time forming a system of park clusters. The
reorganization, a part of the Clinton Administration’s “reinvention” of government
that involved downsizing and streamlining, was primarily designed to shift resources
and personnel from central offices to field units. Regional offices and cluster support
offices provide certain administrative functions and specialized staff services and
expertise which were not believed to be practicable to have in each park unit. This
shared assistance is particularly important to the smaller units. The individual units are
overseen by a park superintendent, with staff generally commensurate with the size,
public use, and significance of the unit. The park units in Alaska are an exception to
this, with relatively few personnel in comparison to the large size of the holdings.
As stated, the basic NPS mission is twofold: to conserve, preserve, protect, and
interpret the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the nation for the public and
to provide for their enjoyment by the public.61 To a considerable extent, the NPS
contributes to meeting the public demand for certain types of outdoor recreation.
Scientific research is another activity encouraged in units of the Park System.
Management direction is provided in the general statutes and in those that create and
govern individual units. In general, activities which harvest or remove the resources
within units of the System are not allowed. Mining, for instance, is generally
prohibited, although in a limited number of national parks and monuments some
mining is allowed, in accordance with the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976. Also, in
authorizing certain additions to the System, Congress has specified that certain natural
resource uses, such as oil and gas development or hunting, may — or shall — be
permitted in specific units; examples include national preserves such as Big Cypress
and national recreation areas such as Glen Canyon. Other uses are dealt with in
specific enactments, such as the 1911 law dealing with rights-of-way through Park
System units.
Land Ownership
Designation and Acquisition Authority. Most units of the National Park
System have been created by Acts of Congress. In 1998, Congress amended existing
law pertaining to the creation of new units to standardize procedures, improve
information about potential additions, prioritize areas, focus attention on outstanding
60
The National Park Service Advisory Board has begun an ambitious undertaking to produce
recommendations for a Park Service guiding agenda for the 21st century.
61
Detailed guidance on NPS management practices can be found on the NPS website at:
[http://www.nps.gov/planning/mngmtplc/npsmpint.html].
CRS-50
areas, and ensure congressional support for studies of possible additions.62 The
Secretary of the Interior is to investigate, study, and monitor nationally significant
areas with potential for inclusion in the System. The Secretary is to submit annually
to Congress a list of areas recommended for study for potential inclusion in the
National Park System. The Secretary also is required to submit to Congress each year
a list of previously-studied areas that contain primarily historical resources, and a
similar list of areas with natural resources, with areas ranked in order of priority for
possible inclusion in the System. In practice, NPS performs the functions assigned to
the Secretary.
In assessing whether to recommend a particular area, the NPS is required by law
to consider: whether an area is nationally significant, and would be a suitable and
feasible addition to the National Park System; whether an area represents or includes
themes, sites, or resources “not adequately” represented in the system; and requests
for studies in the form of public petitions and congressional resolutions. An actual
study requires authorization by Congress, although the NPS may conduct certain
preliminary assessment activities. In preparing studies, NPS must consider certain
factors also established in law. After funds are made available, NPS must complete
a study within three fiscal years.
Under the Antiquities Act of 1906, the President is authorized to proclaim
national monuments on federal land, and to date about 120 monuments have been
created by presidential proclamations. Many areas initially designated as national
monuments were later made into national parks. Before 1940, Presidents used this
authority frequently (for proclaiming 87 national monuments), but in 1978 President
Carter set aside more land as national monuments (56 million acres in Alaska) than
any other President.63 President Clinton used his authority under the Antiquities Act
22 times to proclaim 19 new monuments and enlarge 3 others. The Forest Service,
the BLM, and other agencies also manage some monuments, including several of the
new monuments created by President Clinton.
In addition to establishing a unit of the National Park System, an act of Congress
may set the boundaries of the unit and authorize the NPS to acquire the non-federal
lands within those boundaries. The principal funding source for land acquisition has
been the Land and Water Conservation Fund, described above in the chapter entitled
“Federal Lands Financing.” The Secretary is to include, in a report to Congress at
least every 3 years, a “comprehensive listing of all authorized but unacquired lands
within the exterior boundaries of each unit” (16 U.S.C. §1a-11(a)) and a “priority
listing of all such unacquired parcels” (16 U.S.C. §1a-11(b)). Further, the general
management plan for each unit is to include “indications of potential modifications to
the external boundaries of the unit, and the reasons therefor” (§1a-7). The Secretary
is to identify criteria to evaluate proposed boundary changes (§1a-12). Further, the
Secretary is authorized to make minor boundary adjustments for “proper preservation,
protection, interpretation, or management” and to acquire the nonfederal lands within
the adjusted boundary (16 U.S.C. §460l-9(c)).
62
63
P.L. 105-391, 16 U.S.C. §1a-5.
Congress rescinded these withdrawals and reestablished most of the lands as national
monuments or other protective designations (such as national parks) in §1322 of ANILCA.
CRS-51
Disposal Authority. Units (and lands) of the National Park System
established by Acts of Congress can be disposed of only by Acts of Congress. NonNPS lands encompassed by minor boundary adjustments can be acquired through land
exchanges, but, unlike for some of the other federal land management agencies, the
Secretary may not convey property administered as part of the National Park System
in order to acquire lands by exchange.64 Finally, the Secretary cannot modify or
revoke any withdrawal creating a national monument.65 Thus, with minor exceptions,
National Park System lands can be changed from that status or disposed of only by
an Act of Congress.
Issues
On-going disputes center on how to balance appropriate public use of national
park land for recreation with protection of park resources. In the 106th Congress, a
national policy for regulating commercial air tour flights over national parks was
enacted (P.L. 106-181). NPS regulations for managing the use of personal watercraft
(e.g., water bikes and jet skis) have proven controversial as a possible precedent for
other land managers. Finally, appropriate use of “snow machines” (e.g.,
snowmobiles) in Park units was the subject of several contentious hearings in the 106th
Congress, has been the subject of NPS regulations, and continued to figure in
appropriation and budget debates right to the end of that Congress.
Over the years, Congress has continued to add new units to the Park System as
well as expand the management responsibilities of the NPS. These changes, together
with increased numbers of visitors, have added pressure to the Park System’s
resources and contributed to a multibillion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance.66
In FY1996, the temporary government shutdowns included temporary closure of NPS
units. Public objections to the park unit closures and concerns about deteriorating
facilities have led Congress to increase overall NPS appropriations each year since
FY1996.
Congress also has authorized a recreation fee demonstration program to
supplement NPS appropriations with higher entrance and recreation user fees. The
temporary program was initiated in the FY1996 Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions
and Appropriations Act, and allows most of the higher fees (at a limited number of
sites for each agency) to be retained where the money is collected, rather than
returned to the U.S. Treasury. The program continues to be tested by NPS and the
other federal land management agencies and has been extended by Congress through
FY2002. Many citizens have objected to paying additional fees for previously free or
64
16 U.S.C. §460l-9(c).
65
43 U.S.C. §1714(j). While Presidents may modify monument boundaries, it is not certain
that a President can revoke a national monument. (See CRS Report RS20647)
66
U.S. General Accounting Office. National Park Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues.
GAO/T-RCED-98-61. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Feb. 4, 1998.
CRS-52
low-cost recreation in the national forests, but have expressed few objections to
higher fees for the National Park System. 67
In recent Congresses, as an alternative to creating new NPS units, Congress also
has designated a number of “heritage areas,” where the NPS supports state and
community conservation goals through “seed money” (usually for a set number of
years), recognition, and technical assistance. Heritage areas are a new form of
partnership to conserve and protect locally important natural, scenic, historic, cultural,
and recreational resources that may lack the stature and national significance to
qualify for inclusion in the National Park System.
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.